Mark, The actual price per article is very much dependent on the scale and efficiency of the operation, given that so much of the cost is fixed (the system) or quasi-fixed (staff). The $500 per article of BMC is based on assumptions of scale which we believe are achievable within a reasonable amount of time. These assumptions are ambitious, but not overly so. There is a lower limit to those economies of scale, though, because of basic technical and production costs and the like, and that lower limit now seems to be under $500, but only just. This may change over time (in either direction, I might add), but is unlikely to result in costs that are massively lower or higher.
For now, the fee per article is only charged per published article (at least at BMC). That still is a (pragmatic) inconsistency in the input-paid model that eventually needs to be addressed, either by charging a higher fee proportional in some way with the rejection rate of a journal, or a non-refundable portion of the per article charge even if the article is rejected. Jan Velterop BioMed Central -----Original Message----- From: Mark Doyle To: [email protected] Sent: 1/10/03 7:01 PM Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy Greetings, On Friday, January 10, 2003, at 01:00 PM, David Goodman wrote: > For one thing, probably $500 is nearer the real cost than $1500; Well, you have to cover rejections as well as accepted articles. $1500 is about what it costs APS per published article ( this covers ALL costs associated with our journal publications, including rejections which cost more on average to peer review than accepted articles and it assumes all income would come from submission side charges for accepted articles only). I do find the BioMedCentral figure of $500 interesting though. Is that partly subsidized by advertising or other revenues? Jan, do you have a per-published article cost that you can share? Does that $500 apply to all submissions or only accepted ones? > for another, reducing the cost to $500 might possibly offer some > savings to > institutions as a whole and $1500 certainly would not.
