Replies to Manfredi La Manna and Christopher Green: > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:11:30 +0000 > From: Manfredi La Manna <m...@st-andrews.ac.uk> > > 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.
(1) The BMC $500 processing charge is not just for peer review. (2) We need realistic estimates of what peer review alone costs. (3) I very much doubt that most journals will have peer review costs as high as $500 per submitted paper. (4) I don't believe rejected articles cost anywhere near that amount. > Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 17:27:27 -0500 > From: Christopher D. Green <chri...@yorku.ca> > > I've been thinking it all through this discussion, but perhaps I should make > it explicit here. Charges such as this will *never* fly in experimental > psychology, where the only journals that have page charges are generally > considered to be just a hair's beadth above vanity presses. Another business > model will have to be developed if this is to work in psychology. Never say never. My own prediction is that it will be rough weather for peer-review charges for the time being in all disciplines. But when self-archiving prevails, and generates annual windfall institutional toll savings, there will be plenty out of which to pay peer-review charges. Where there's a way, there's a will. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm Stevan Harnad
