Dear Heather, even though I share your thoughts on APCs, I doubt that transparent pricing will always lower prices. Conversely, it can also lead to higher prices, e.g. by better market analysis. If I remember right, Australia's FuelWatch (an open-access database for fuel prices) did not cause prices to fall. But maybe someone here knows more.
Best regards, Ulrich Herb Am 2019-09-04 19:41, schrieb Heather Morrison: > Exactly, Lisa. Scholarly communication does not have to be a market, > and I argue it is better if it is not. > > Dr. Heather Morrison > Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of > Ottawa > Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, Université > d'Ottawa > Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC > Insight Project > sustainingknowledgecommons.org > [email protected] > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > > ------------------------- > > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf of > Lisa Hinchliffe <[email protected]> > Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 1:28:40 PM > To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts > > Attention : courriel externe | external email > > I agree these are interesting projects/products/goods. However, as > examples they aren't examples of a market are they? > > ___ > > Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe > [email protected] > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 12:22 PM Heather Morrison > <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Two examples of transparent pricing: >> >> SSHRC Aid to Scholarly Journals (Canad): >> > http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx >> [1] >> >> This is a peer-reviewed journal subsidy program. The $ value, >> journal eligibility, application and review process, are all clearly >> articulated. Canada is not unusual in subsidizing journal >> publishing. In areas such as the social sciences, humanities and >> arts, this is necessary because local knowledge is important >> (everywhere). Law is an important topic in every country, but >> Canadian law is most relevant in Canada and for scholarship to >> flourish in this area, scholars need publication venues. This is >> true of history, culture/arts, local social and environmental >> issues. Some knowledge is universal; some knowledge is specific to a >> particular region, group, environment, etc. >> >> One key benefit of this model is cost. The base - maximum per >> journal is $30 - $35,000 per year (Cdn). At the mid-point of >> $32,500, a journal publishing 40 peer-reviewed articles per year >> would receive about $850 Canadian per article. Per-journal funding >> eliminates the need to count articles and gives journals flexibility >> to increase or decrease volume based on need. The funding in >> Canadian dollars gives journals budgeting stability, as costs such >> as local journal hosting and staffing costs are in Canadian dollars >> as well. Currency fluctuations are a problem in budgeting for many >> journals. As Salhab & I discussed here, >> > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/13/how-a-flat-apc-with-no-price-increase-for-3-years-can-be-a-6-77-price-increase/ >> >> PLOS One's flat pricing in USD over 3 years was in effect a 6 - 77% >> price increase for authors and funders based on country and local >> currency. >> >> To illustrate the potential with a full flip using this kind of >> approach: >> >> The Canadian Research Knowledge Network (CRKN) spends approximately >> $100 million per year on subscriptions / purchase and some OA >> transitional funding. CRKN is just one of the academic library >> sources of funding in Canada. There are other regional consortia, >> such as the Ontario Council of University Libraries. Also, large >> university libraries such as the University of Ottawa and University >> of Toronto also spend considerably sums. >> >> If the CRKN's 100 million per year were transformed to support a >> subsidy program modeled on that of SSHRC, this amount could >> subsidize over 3,000 scholarly journals (at the rate in between the >> base and maximum). This example is meant just as an illustration; >> we also need to fund book publication and new forms of publication >> such as research blog archiving and data publication, but it is not >> clear that Canada would need 3,000 journals and there are there >> existing sources of funding as mentioned in the paragraph above. >> >> Another important advantage of this model is ensuring academic >> leadership and hence prioritizing quality. Journal-level >> peer-review, by academics, greatly reduces the likelihood of >> predatory publishing. Journal publishing by academic editors whose >> promotions depend on the quality of their scholarship is more likely >> to prioritize quality than commercial outfits seeking APC $ for >> profit. B >> >> This model also provides local jobs and leadership opportunities >> for local academics and their universities. Further detail from >> publishers of such journals via interviews is available here: >> https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015 [2] >> >> Another example of transparent costing is the Public Knowledge >> Project's Open Journal Systems. The software per se is open source >> and free for anyone to download, use, and contribute to the >> community. PKP also offers a journal hosting service; prices are >> posted on the website that detail what is provided for each service: >> https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting [3] >> >> There are other examples, and I encourage others on the list to >> point to them. I am providing just a couple of examples that I am >> familiar with and consider good models. These are not perfect >> models, there is always room for improvement, but good models that >> are easily overlooked. This is because academic-led publishing is >> led by academics who will tend to go to their disciplinary >> conferences and participate in disciplinary discussions, so you will >> not meet many of them at conferences like OASPA, ALPSPS, SSP, etc., >> or hear from them on the GOAL discussion list. >> >> In the interests of full disclosure, my funder (SSRHC) is >> responsible for the Aid to Scholarly Journals program and provided >> the seed funding for what is now the Public Knowledge Project. As of >> a few years ago, about half the fully open access journals in the >> world were using PKP's Open Journal Systems, so I argue that this >> modest research funding was a very valuable global contribution >> (thanks to founder John Willinsky, now at Stanford). >> >> best, >> >> Dr. Heather Morrison >> >> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of >> Ottawa >> >> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, >> Université d'Ottawa >> >> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC >> Insight Project >> >> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4] >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 >> >> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] >> >> ------------------------- >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Lisa Hinchliffe <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 12:11 PM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Attention : courriel externe | external email >> >> With this analysis, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a >> transparent market then. Is there? >> >> ___ >> >> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe >> [email protected] >> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Heather Morrison >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> hi Lisa, >> >> Thanks for the question. >> >> If one individual author, institution, or funder looks at the >> publisher's website and sees a price (list price), but do not know >> that others do not pay that price, that is a lack of transparency. >> >> This is similar to going to buy a car and thinking the sticker price >> is the price, not knowing that negotiation is common or how much to >> ask for. The savvy buyer (perhaps a rich person who buys lots of >> cars) may pay less and/or get more options than the non-savvy buyer. >> >> If publishers are negotiating pricing with institutions and funders, >> and list price is the starting point for negotiations, this is an >> incentive to increase the list price for the next negotiation. For >> example, double the price so you can offer the next group buyer a >> 50% discount. The early bird institution / funder can argue for >> historical funding to keep prices down but newer entrants are stuck >> at a higher historical basis. OpenAPC does help in making what >> people pay open, assuming that downstream negotiators are aware of >> this. Publishers have no incentive to educate on this point. >> >> These kinds of strategies were and probably still are used for >> subscriptions, and are not unique to publishing. >> >> This is understandable, but the result is a non-transparent market >> that seems likely to continue the dysfunctional elements of the >> subscriptions market into OA. >> >> List members who feel they do not have the background to understand >> things like business and nonprofit approaches to pricing strategy >> probably know more than they realize. >> >> Some common real-world examples: >> >> When you sell a house or a car, you will probably seek the highest >> price you can, what the market will bear. This is the same strategy >> Elsevier uses when they quote you the highest price they think you >> will pay, or MDPI charges the highest APC they think authors will >> pay. In any of these cases, the seller may start with a high quote >> as it is easy to reduce the price but very difficult to increase it >> after a low initial offer. >> >> When a government funds a public university on the basis of the >> number of FTE students, on the assumption that it cost x amount to >> provide an education, that is cost-based budgeting. Similarly, if a >> research institution receives x annual funding (from a government or >> philanthropic institution), on the assumption that this will >> accomplish certain research goals, that is cost-based budgeting. >> >> In scholarly publishing, buyers (libraries, institutions, funders) >> tend to be under cost-based budgeting while commercial publishers >> (subscriptions or OA) work under market conditions. This is a >> fundamental conflict that led to dysfunction in the subscriptions >> market (serials crisis) and may do the same in OA, assuming >> commercial market-oriented publishers. >> >> Potential remedies include non-commercial approaches such as library >> hosted publishing services and modest cost-based journal subsidies, >> and institutional open access archives and new services based on >> them. >> >> best, >> >> Dr. Heather Morrison >> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of >> Ottawa >> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, >> Université d'Ottawa >> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC >> Insight Project >> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4] >> [email protected] >> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 >> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] >> >> ------------------------- >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Lisa Hinchliffe <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:51:10 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Attention : courriel externe | external email >> >> Heather, can you explain a bit your claim that different people >> paying different prices means the market isn't transparent? Is that >> inherently non-transparent? Or, are you suggesting the issue is that >> it isn't publicly known what the different prices are? Lisa >> >> ___ >> >> Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe >> [email protected] >> >> On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:37 AM Heather Morrison >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Dirk says with respect to OpenAPCs: "the real costs for academic >> institutions and funders...deviate from list prices for various >> reasons". >> >> If correct, as I assume it is, this is not a transparent market. For >> example, I assume this means authors who are not covered by >> institutions or funders are expected to pay list price (unless they >> negotiate an individual waiver), and different institutions and >> funders pay different prices for the same service, based on their >> ability to negotiate. >> >> The information on a publisher's website gives the list price and >> often has a waiver of 50% for authors from low to middle income >> countries. Is this half of a price that no one in the richest >> institutions actually pays? Is it sometimes more than a rich >> institution actually pays for one of its authors? >> >> best, >> >> Dr. Heather Morrison >> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of >> Ottawa >> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, >> Université d'Ottawa >> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC >> Insight Project >> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4] >> [email protected] >> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 >> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] >> >> ------------------------- >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Pieper, Dirk <[email protected]> >> Sent: Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:30:09 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Attention : courriel externe | external email >> >> Dear Heather, >> >> thank you, I fully agree. Just some additional remarks: >> >> The monitoring of publishers list prices is very important, the >> approach of OpenAPC is to monitor the real costs per article for >> academic institutions and funders, which deviate from list prices >> for various reasons. Both ways should be regarded as complementary. >> >> I also see the biggest challenge at the moment in creating the >> above mentioned cost transparency for articles within transformative >> agreements, especially if they are mixed up with costs for reading >> access and when historical subscription expenditures of consortia >> and participating institutions are involved. APCs and so called PAR >> fees are different of course but in the end they both put a price >> tag on an OA article. Funders and academic institutions then can >> make their decisions, which way of OA transition or which publishers >> they can support with public money within their limited budgets. >> >> Leaving out authors is always a mess. I remember editors in our >> university, who could not read their own journals, because we as a >> library were not able to pay the license for reading … >> >> Best, >> >> Dirk >> >> Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im >> Auftrag von Heather Morrison >> Gesendet: Dienstag, 3. September 2019 21:07 >> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Every model for transitioning to open access has its advantages and >> disadvantages. >> >> One of the potential benefits of the article processing charge >> method is transparency, which in theory could lead to more price and >> cost sensibility as Dirk describes. I was more optimistic about this >> potential in the past than I am today. OA journals and publishers' >> websites are full of information about APCs being paid for by >> institutions, funders, not out of authors' pockets. If funders pay >> for APCs, the cost may be transparent to authors and universities, >> but who pays attention when someone else is paying? In the >> transformative (subscriptions + open access) deals, APCs are no more >> transparent than subscriptions, and based on my prior experience >> negotiating licensing deals, these combined deals may make both the >> subscriptions and the APC costs more obscure, because ultimately, >> buyers and sellers of big deals are agreeing on a bundled price >> rather than a cost structure, never mind a transparent cost >> structure. Such deals have a strong potential to alter the APC >> market, because low APCs might seem to publishers as a weakness in >> negotiating. Also, for traditional scholarly publishers who have >> extensive back lists of works for which they own copyright (a major >> financial asset), the best case scenario is complete failure of the >> open access movement. New publishers who rely on APCs (e.g. PLOS, >> Hindawi, MDPI) have incentive to transform the entire system, but >> not traditional highly profitable publishers like SpringerNature and >> Elsevier. >> >> One of the strong drawbacks of APC is leaving out authors who >> cannot afford the fees. This is not just authors in low income >> countries. As Peter Murray-Rust helpfully pointed out recently, >> active retiree scholars like PMR do not have funding for APCs, >> either. This is also likely to be true of emerging scholars in the >> developed world who are in the process of trying to establish a >> career. Even if every university and research institution covered >> APCs for regular full-time researchers, it is unlikely that future >> such researchers would be covered. >> >> Another reason to be cautious about the potential of APC to achieve >> cost and pricing stability is that whether this will happen or >> whether we will see a continuation of the decades-old inelastic >> market for scholarly publishing in an open access market remains to >> be seen. Will authors see the cost and seek cost-effective >> publishing solutions? Or, will the underlying dynamic behind the >> inelastic market - "must purchase / subscribe" simply shift to >> "must-publish-in"? >> >> To date, based on our longitudinal APC study, while there is not >> enough data to draw firm conclusions, there is enough evidence of >> transitioning the inelastic market into APCs to warrant concern. As >> we have reported in the past few years, price increases that are far >> beyond inflationary levels, applied to already substantial prices, >> have been observed among both traditional-transitioning and new >> OA-only publishers. >> >> Select examples: >> >> SpringerOpen 2018/2019: 8% increase in average APC; 36% of >> journals, the ones with the highest volumes, increased in price at >> rates from double the inflation rate to double the price. >> >> > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/08/13/springeropen-pricing-trends-2018-2019/ >> >> >> Frontiers 2018/2019: while the average APC increase is only 3%, 40% >> of Frontiers journals increased in price from 2018/2019 by 18% - 31% >> (the EU inflation rate is below 2% for this time frame). >> >> > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/04/30/frontiers-in-2019-3-increase-in-average-apc/ >> >> >> MDPI 2018/2019: "In brief: MDPI has increased prices, in many cases >> quite substantially (some prices have more than tripled). Even more >> price increases are anticipated in July 2019, which will have the >> effect of doubling the average APC and tripling the most common APC. >> Unlike other publishers’ practices, there are no price decreases". >> > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/ >> [5] >> >> Kudos to Dr. Franck Vasquez, MDPI's CEO, for open discussion about >> similar price increases in 2018. The key takeaway I was hoping for >> in the case of new APC based publishers like MDPI is an >> understanding that this kind of price increases (market-based >> pricing) is not compatible with budgets of payers (libraries, >> universities and funding agencies' budgets are based on costs and >> resource availability). This fundamental conflict seems very likely >> to drive an inelastic, unsustainable APC market. However, after this >> open, transparent conversation, here we are again in 2019 with new >> OA publishers pursuing exactly the same pricing strategy. >> >> To conclude, while my team spends a lot of time studying APC >> trends, this does not imply endorsement of the method. In the past, >> I advocated for APCs as a way to introduce transparency and >> competition into the market. Today, I urge caution and strongly >> encourage consideration of other models. For example, direct subsidy >> models such as providing infrastructure for publishing and archives >> at the university or research organization and supporting editorial >> work (e.g. modest subsidy to pay for support staff) is much more >> efficient than APC, which is in effect an indirect subsidy model. If >> transparency is sought, universities and funding agencies, at least >> in my part of the world, have a solid reputation for seeking >> accountability for every cost incurred. >> >> best, >> >> Dr. Heather Morrison >> >> Associate Professor, School of Information Studies, University of >> Ottawa >> >> Professeur Agrégé, École des Sciences de l'Information, >> Université d'Ottawa >> >> Principal Investigator, Sustaining the Knowledge Commons, a SSHRC >> Insight Project >> >> sustainingknowledgecommons.org [4] >> >> [email protected] >> >> https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 [6] >> >> [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] >> >> ------------------------- >> >> From: [email protected] <[email protected]> on behalf >> of Pieper, Dirk <[email protected]> >> Sent: Monday, September 2, 2019 4:00 AM >> To: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Attention : courriel externe | external email >> >> Dear all, >> >> (a) even in “richer” countries it is necessary to reduce APC >> prices because of limited budgets of academic institutions and >> funder policies. In many cases authors and libraries are successful >> to get reduced APCs from publishers >> >> (b) I agree that APCs are in most cases not related to the costs >> of producing an article, but they indicate the costs for >> institutions or authors to publish OA in journals with certain >> publishers. That is a progress compared to the subscription system, >> because this is slowly leading to more price and cost sensibility. >> That is why I like APCs J) … >> >> Best, >> >> Dirk >> >> Von: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Im >> Auftrag von Peter Murray-Rust >> Gesendet: Samstag, 31. August 2019 17:18 >> An: Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <[email protected]> >> Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; scholcomm >> <[email protected]> >> Betreff: Re: [GOAL] How to manage APC waivers and discounts >> >> Thank you Chris, >> >> I feel exactly as you do, maybe more. This is wrong on several >> counts. >> >> (a) as you say it requires the underprivileged (the "scholarly >> poor") to beg. Some journals give lower prices for World Bank LMIC >> countries - but often Brasil and India are classified as >> high-income. Even reducing the price to half is impossible for many >> countries. >> >> (b) the APC is NOT cost-related (see another post form me about >> DEAL). DEAL pays Springer the price of an article (2750 E) whereas >> the cost of processing is ca 400 E (Grossman and Brembs, 2019) >> >> Costs are almost never transparent, therefore cause prices to be >> whatever the publisher can get away with. This adds another layer of >> injustice. >> >> I am affected by the APCs. I am on the board of two journals and >> being retired have to pay and APC myself. I feel diminished if I >> have to ask to get a waiver, and in any case it looks very unethical >> to gve waivers to the board. I therefore cannot publish in the >> journals that I give my time freely to. >> >> The system is now completely out of date. Many places and >> organizations CAN run platinum journals (no fee open to all). It's >> more ethical equitable and makes knowledge fully available. >> >> 70% of climate papers are behind paywalls. Making a no-fee publish >> system is the only way to get the knowledge flowing. My software can >> read 10000 papers in a morning, but the broken societal system >> prevents that. >> >> P. >> >> On Sat, Aug 31, 2019 at 2:17 PM Chris Zielinski >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> (Apologies for cross-posting) >> >> This is to raise a question about how editors of Open Access >> journals that demand an article processing charge (APC) should deal >> with discounts for non-institutional authors or those from poorer >> countries. >> >> The offering of substantial APC waivers to authors from specific >> countries or to researchers with financial constraints in specific >> cases is familiar. My question relates to the way in which such >> discounts are offered. >> >> Usually, a researcher needs to assert or demonstrate his/her >> inability to pay the APC before getting relief. The problem is that >> obliging researcher to request a lower or zero APC feels a bit like >> inviting them to beg – and the result often seems to depend on the >> benevolence and good humour of the editor, responding on an >> individual, case-by-case basis, rather than by applying some >> pre-established rule. >> >> This is surely not good enough. It can’t be correct and ethical >> scientific practice to require unsupported authors to face the >> embarrassment of having to turn out their pockets and demonstrate >> the holes in their socks before they get a discount. >> >> Any views on this? Should there be a norm among OA journals that >> each should adopt a standardized system to determine APC charges >> (ranging from 0 to the full APC, depending on an explicit list of >> circumstances), avoiding the need for any negotiation? >> >> Best, >> >> Chris >> >> Chris Zielinski >> [email protected] >> Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and >> http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com >> Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net >> >> _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >> >> -- >> >> "I always retain copyright in my papers, and nothing in any >> contract I sign with any publisher will override that fact. You >> should do the same". >> >> Peter Murray-Rust >> Reader Emeritus in Molecular Informatics >> Unilever Centre, Dept. Of Chemistry >> University of Cambridge >> CB2 1EW, UK >> +44-1223-763069 _______________________________________________ >> GOAL mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > > Links: > ------ > [1] > http://www.sshrc-crsh.gc.ca/funding-financement/programs-programmes/scholarly_journals-revues_savantes-eng.aspx > [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/leap.1015 > [3] https://pkpservices.sfu.ca/content/journal-hosting > [4] http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org > [5] > https://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2019/02/13/mdpi-2019-price-increases-some-hefty-and-more-coming-in-july/ > [6] https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal -- Dr. Ulrich Herb ./scidecode Postfach 11 54 D-66266 Kleinblittersdorf https://scidecode.com/en +49-(0)157 30306851 twitter.com/scidecode twitter.com/scinoptica _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
