Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi, The American Physical Society costs for journal production are somewhere in the neighborhood of 1/3 for editorial/refereeing, 1/3 for composition and copy-editing, and 1/3 for printing and distribution. So I think your 70/30 split is quite reasonable. The problem with some other analyses is t

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Wed, 26 Aug 1998 22:22:56 -0400, Mark Doyle wrote: >The real danger is that subscriptions to our journals could dry up >before we have a chance to complete the transition to a new, leaner >all-electronic publishing process. The APS (a non-profit publisher >with benevolent aspirations) is much

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Economics, Competition, etc. Stevan Harnad makes a telling comment in his response on archiving: > the virtue of making xxx the locus of more and more of the > literature in all disciplines is that many eggs can be > collectively tended in one basket. a single basket does introduce simplicity -

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Arthur Smith sh> the virtue of making xxx the locus of more and more of the >sh> literature in all disciplines is that many eggs can be >sh> collectively tended in one basket. > > the proverb counter to this has a fundamental rationale And that's the function of mirroring (and redundan

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi all, Well this discussion at least has led to the deflation of one myth that I often encounter: that the APS acts as a single cohesive unit with agreement among all. Anyway, Arthur makes some good points, but I disagree with some of his points. On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, "Arthur Smith " wrote: > Ha

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi, On Thu, 27 Aug 1998, Stevan Harnad wrote: > There is a danger to publishers there: The only 2 services that they > are the relevant experts in are (1) implementing peer-review and (2) > editing/mark-up -- in other words content and form quality control. The > other add-ons (links, searching,

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

I fear my esteemed colleagues are having trouble keeping their eyes on reality, which is what I was attempting in my remarks. It is all very well to prognosticate about 10 years or 30 years down the road, but what is actually out there right now, and what will be out in the next year or two? For ex

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

> Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org) wrote: > > JHEP seems to be on course to publish about 300 papers per year, ATMP > about 60. JHEP charges libraries $360 and ATMP $300 for the print > edition, or $1.20 and $5 per article, respectively... these > "electronic-only" journals are not giving libraries

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 08:04:48 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org) wrote: >> ... Furthermore, both "overlay" journals have print versions (which >> they rely on for revenue), so it is hard to truly call them >> "electronic-only". > >I believe you have answered your own qu

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Hi, On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > Then we have no concrete examples of an "overlay" electronic-only > journal at all. So the thing you are proposing does not yet exist. > Meanwhile, existing academic journals are moving forward. My argument > is that a purely electronic "overlay" jou

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

> Arthur Smith (apsm...@aps.org) wrote: > > Then we have no concrete examples of an "overlay" electronic-only > journal at all. So the thing you are proposing does not yet exist. That's correct. And your point is...? > Meanwhile, existing academic journals are moving forward. My argument > is tha

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > It is all well and good to say "of course peer review will be available", > but peer review is expensive and the model you have proposed for a journal > based on the xxx archives does not seem to be in any way viable as > a purely electronic entity. Plea

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 14:47:24 -0400, Christopher D. Green wrote: >On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > >> It is all well and good to say "of course peer review will be available", >> but peer review is expensive and the model you have proposed for a journal >> based on the xxx archives does

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 15:40:16 -0400, Stevan Harnad wrote: >> There are of course many other electronic-only journals, but they "own" >> the content in the traditional manner, and do the distribution >> themselves. > >Correct. But if free, they have nothing to lose (and a good deal >to gain, and s

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998 Arthur Smith wrote: as> There are of course many other electronic-only journals, but they as> "own" the content in the traditional manner, and do the distribution as> themselves. sh> Correct. But if free, they have nothing to lose (and a good deal to sh> gain, and save)

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Sat, 29 Aug 1998 09:01:34, Stevan Harnad wrote: >You left out the driver of the S/SL/PPV crash: Library cancellations, >driven by the user preference for the free literature. That will hit >all S/SL/PPV publishers, for-profit and non- alike. In the face of >cancellations, raising S/SL/PPV jus

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

There were some good questions on my arguments in Stevan's response, (under my name) which I will try to address below. But let's turn first to the core of the argument, from the middle of his response: Stevan Harnad wrote: > >If we agree that we are talking about the >same much-reduced costs, th

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Arthur Smith Stevan Harnad wrote: sh> If we agree that we are talking about the same much-reduced sh> costs, then I am just saying S/SL/PPV is simply the wrong way to sh> recover them in this new medium, because, by definition, sh> toll-gates mean access blockage, and this special ca

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Arthur Smith raised the question of whether authors have different motives for journal articles and books (I think). I write books, journal articles, and I have a web page with working papers in it (as well as papers that never got published). My motives are different for these different media. F

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > But it could still happen. If authors en masse suddenly decided to > post to xxx, what then? I grant your assumption, and then what? > > 1. Peer reviewed journal subscriptions crash > 2. For-profits simply raise their prices (and make out with their 3-y

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Elizabeth In the technological forecasting literature what you are refering to is a submsitution process. for example normalize the market to 100% and then compare how much of that % is being taken over by the new technology over time and you get the classic logistic equation: e.g. water bas

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Mon, 31 Aug 1998 21:08:39 -0400, Guedon Jean-Claude wrote: >On Fri, 28 Aug 1998, Arthur Smith wrote: > [...] >> 4. Non-profits turn to government funding. For-profits cry foul and >> unfair competition. > >Regarding point 4 above. So what if Elsevier cries foul in the States or >in Canada? T

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Ok, I knew I would draw some fire for that last message. Strangely, it doesn't seem to have made it onto the web archive (though Stevan quoted it extensively) - I think I've been spending too much time on this debate - is this a nefarious plot?! I should mention again that I don't speak for my emp

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Jonathan Baron wrote about: >1. contributions from scholarly societies; >2. subscription fees for the paper version of the journal, for >those who still want it; >3. subscription fees for an early version of the web edition >(i.e., the free version is delayed by a few months). I would be curious

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Tue, 1 Sep 1998, Jesse Martin wrote: > Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1998 12:13:43 -0400 > From: Jesse Martin > To: september-fo...@amsci-forum.amsci.org > Subject: Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ? > > Jonathan Baron wrote about: > > I would be curiou

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

At 12:25 PM 1998/08/31, Arthur Smith wrote: >a reputable publisher. Ignoring royalties, compare what a self-published >author can hope to achieve (say posting their book on the web) relative >to one who relies on a traditional publisher. This really isn't >all that different from what scholarly au

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

At 11:39 PM 1998/08/31, Stevan Harnad wrote: >To put it really starkly: Ultimately the prestige of refereed journals >depends on the referees, and they are in the pay of neither the >publisher nor the author in EITHER model. Its not the prestige of the _journal_ that is important, it is the seal o

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

At 9:08 PM 1998/08/31, Guedon Jean-Claude wrote: >Libraries should strongly consider deciding that no subscription will be >taken for a journal that claims to be scholarly AND that makes a profit >or belongs to a profit-making entity. They will be able to do that if academics decide not to publish

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Wed, 2 Sep 1998 02:20:19 +1000, Tony Barry wrote: >At 11:39 PM 1998/08/31, Stevan Harnad wrote: >>To put it really starkly: Ultimately the prestige of refereed journals >>depends on the referees, and they are in the pay of neither the >>publisher nor the author in EITHER model. > >Its not the

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

At 12:13 PM 1998/09/01, "Jesse Martin " I would be curious to hear what the major research libraries have to >say since they are the ones who will appear to receive the greatest >benefit (financially) from conversion The Dutch and German libraries have taken a stand

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Good points. And we should remember that the editor chooses the reviewers, and not at random. I edited a journal for 7 years (until I burned out from having to read bad manuscripts), and I know how reviewers are chosen. The editor learns which reviewers make only cursory comments (or turn the t

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Arthur Smith : In another thread I made an assertion about prices which I have now discovered, at least for our journals (Physical Review) was incorrect. Going back to 1950, we charged $25/year for a journal of close to 4000 pages - that's $172 in 1998 dollars, or 4.3 cents/page. The per-page pric

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Sun, 20 Sep 1998 Arthur Smith wrote: > Since we've always been non-profit (ie. revenue equals costs to within > roughly 10 percent) the cost per published page can be estimated by > multiplying the subscription price by the circulation numbers... > this product (price/page * number of library

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Arthur P. Smith : On Tue, 22 Sep 1998, Albert Henderson wrote: > PRICE Constant > year pages curr.$ const.$ price/page CIRCULATION PPPxcirc deflator > 1950 4000 $25 $172 $0.043 5628 242 0.1453 > 1997 83710 $10

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Sep 1998 Arthur P. Smith wrote: aps> I only know the circulation trends from 1960 on (dropping 3%/year on aps> average) - I believe circulation actually grew from 1950 to 1960... aps> it's hard to aps> go beyond this kind of rough comparison to actual numbers without aps> getting into a lot of

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Thu, 24 Sep 1998 05:32:38 -0400, Albert Henderson wrote: >My notes from editors' reports published in the Bulletin of the >American Physical Society indicate the following circulation >figures for nonmember sales of Physical Review: > [numbers...] good - looks like I was only 10% high in my

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

I have been following this forum and finding the discussion fascinating. There appear to be several threads under which I could make this comment, but let me do it here. One thing we deal with in the American Meteorological Society Journals is that scientists from some countries are prohibited fro

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

On Fri, 25 Sep 1998, Keith Seitter wrote: > One thing we deal with in the American Meteorological Society Journals is > that scientists from some countries are prohibited from paying page charges > with government research funds... > > Given this situation, we have always felt that it would be bes

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

I see two important flaws in the assumptions behind the notion that making the online publication free to the reader is the best way. The second flaw is a quantitative matter that will change in time, but the first is fundamental. First, the model as outlined most recently by Harnad includes: "(2)

Re: Savings from Converting to On-Line-Only: 30%- or 70%+ ?

Tony Barry For information. > Date: Mon, 19 Oct 1998 14:55:48 -0400 > Subject: automated web-based peer review & publication > From: Lee Miller > To: hyperjournal-fo...@mailbase.ac.uk > > To reduce costs and accelerate peer review and publication, the on-line > scientific journal _Conservation