On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Fytton Rowland wrote [in part, on the Subject: Re: Nature's vs. Science's Embargo Policy]:
[fr]> A review study that I undertook last year suggests that [fr]> the true figure is closer to the $500 than the $1500, [fr]> assuming a rejection rate of 50%. If rejection rates [fr]> are very high, as in Manfredi la Manna's example, then [fr]> the cost per *published* paper is higher. However, one [fr]> has to ask whether, in a paperless system, rejection [fr]> rates need to be so high! Fytton, are the results of your review study openly accessible? If so, where? About rejection rates: Zukerman and Merton (1971) reported substantial variation, with rejection rates of 20-40% in the physical sciences, and 70-90 percent in the social sciences and humanities: <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1107.html>. A much more recent study by ALPSP yielded results that appear to be consistent with the earlier data: <http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1127.html>. I'd predict that, in a paperless system, rejection rates will continue to vary across disciplies. If this prediction is correct, then costs per published paper will also vary across disciplines. Jim Till University of Toronto
