The one-size-fits-all syndrome strikes again. Scientific disciplines are vastly different in terms of all the relevant variables here, such as rejection rates, turnaround times, editorial structures, etc. I understand that BMC's figure of $500 article-processing-charge (APC) per published article is based on an average rejection rate of 50%. The same ratio applied to a top economics journal (with a rejection rate of 95%) would yield a prohibitive $5,000 APC.
If we are going to have a serious discussion about peer-review costs we have to move away from meaningless averages and determine instead the significant variables, so that consensus can be achieved on a pricing **formula** for peer review. Notice also that peer review costs can also be used to change the quality and speed of peer review (which means that even an average peer-review pricing formula may be difficult to calculate). Manfredi La Manna Dr Manfredi M.A. La Manna Reader in Economics ELSSS, Dept of Economics University of St Andrews St Andrews KY16 9AL Scotland, UK Tel: 44 + (0)1334 462434 Fax: 44+ (0)1334 462444 NEW: ELSSS Mobile: 0797 0054969 http://www.elsss.org