Abstract: This study investigates the potential impact of Open Access pricing on institutional journal expenditures in four subject fields at nine American colleges and universities. Three pricing models are evaluated: the Conventional Model (the current subscription model), the PLoS Open Access Model (based on the fees currently charged by the Public Library of Science), and the Equal-Revenue Open Access Model (which maintains current levels of total aggregate spending within each subject field). Because institutional disparities in publishing productivity are far greater than institutional disparities in library holdings, the shift from a subscription-based model to either Open Access model would bring dramatic cost savings (greater than 50%) for most colleges and universities. At the same time, a small number of institutions—the top research universities—would pay a far higher proportion of the total aggregate cost.
Comment. Let's distinguish two claims: (1) high-output universities will pay more than low-output universities for OA journals, and (2) high-output universities will pay more for OA journals than they now pay for subscription-based journals. The Cornell study of August 2004 and its December 2004 supplement made both claims. But as I've often argued, the Cornell calculation relied on three false assumptions: that all OA journals charge author-side fees, that universities will pay all those fees, and that the average fee is $2500. Walters also makes both claims, and also relies on the first two of these three false assumptions. Most of Walters' argument is devoted to first claim, and he sheds good light on it. However, I think most observers already agreed that the first claim was true, and no more surprising than the fact that high-output universities pay more than low-output universities for journal subscriptions. When Williams asserts the second claim, he improves upon the Cornell calculation primarily by using more sensitive estimates of the size of the author-side fees. He still assumes that all OA journals charge fees and that universities would pay all of them.
I'd like to see Phil Davis (for Cornell) and William Walters refine their calculations to take two known truths into account: that fewer than half of all OA journals charge author-side fees (only 47% according to the Kaufman-Wills study) and that some sizeable percentage of those fees will be paid by funding agencies rather than universities. If the calculations are refined in these ways, we'll find that the first claim remains true and that the second claim is false.
Update. The published version of Walters' article is now online --as is my more detailed argument against the conclusion that OA journals will cost universities more than TA journals.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 4/24/2006 10:31:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
