Thomas Walker quotes author page charges of $45 for the electronic version
of the journal of the Florida Entomological Society (FES). Stevan Harnad
speculates that page charges under $17 would be generally affordable and
that page charges as low as $10 should be possible. The large difference
between these figures is only partly due to the relatively small size of the
FES journal, which Paul Ginsparg points out; further into the correspondence
it transpires that it is almost all due to the overheads and business
expenses arising from the associated paper publication process. A familiar
story.
Given the pressure on library subscriptions, I wonder how many other
publishers are considering page charges, for either paper journals or
electronic versions, to supplement their revenues. Not many I suspect,
because in doing this they would be competing directly with the emerging
model of the academic e-publisher, for which page charges are the preferred
means, currently, of raising revenue to cover costs and to support free
access. The e-publishers, it appears, could achieve page charges of $10/page
or less. If so, paper publishers operating page charges would be completely
exposed, as Thomas Walker inadvertantly revealed by indicating that FES's
reserve option is that 'the Society can always pull the plug on Internet
publication'. Instead publishers will persist with subscription and site
licence models.
Also, it suits the publishers' main market, authors. The author: 'why should
I pay page charges when I can publish my papers for free?'. Simultaneously
the 'Archiving in Perpetuo' thread on this list presents another angle on
the same problem. The university (to paraphrase Andrew Burday): 'why should
we pay for our library to develop systems to preserve material that our
researchers can find elsewhere on the net?'. The system thus unwittingly
conspires against the e-publishing model in every respect, yet the
advantages of the e-publishing model, in dramatically reduced costs as well
as enhanced scholarly communication, are obvious.
This flawed system is in place and, given its myriad complexity, will be
difficult to change, but surely it must be tackled, as Burday argues. The
objective should be to create a system that is more appropriate in this time
of transition; a system that gives the market an equal choice between the
different formats available, in which the best of paper and electronic
publishing can flourish, and which unifies the needs of author, reader,
researcher, university and librarian. Page charges are one way of creating
more equal competition between journals, and particularly between formats,
but as I have argued, without some intervention the market will be denied
this choice.
All parties should have an interest in resolving this matter, including
publishers because the issue goes straight to the heart of a market-led,
rather than a money-making, organization, as pointed out recently in
Hyperjournal-forum:
> Here is a definition of marketing (from the leading text of the
> day; ref.. on request) :
>
> "Marketing consists of individual and organisational activities that
> facilitate and expedite satisfying exchange relationships in a dynamic
> environment through the creation, distribution, promotion and pricing
> of goods, services and ideas".
> So, when we conclude that print journal publishers are not very good
> at marketing, this is basically true, but it runs far deeper than
> misdirected mailings or speculative publishing. Even excellent
> marketing tactics fail when marketing strategy is wrong. Publishers
> are not satisfying their buyers, which is a fundamental threat to
> their sustained existence.
Andrew Pearson, at SilverPlatter Information Limited
10 Barley Mow Passage, Chiswick, London W4 4PH, U.K.
andrewp@silverplatter.com *These views are my own*
There is another dimension to the fascinating FES e-journal example. Learned
societies have traditionally been one of the main channels for academics to
influence change in their fields. Stevan Harnad is right to 'remind learned
societies why they have "nonprofit" and "learned" status in the first
place...', for as long their 'fiscal dependence' on journals dominates
their agenda, on this important issue they will be unable objectively
to represent and respond to the wishes of their members.
Steve Hitchcock sh94r@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Open Journal Framework project Tel: +44 (01)703 594479
Department of Electronics and Computer Science Fax: +44 (01)703 592865
University of Southampton SO17 1BJ UK
http://journals.ecs.soton.ac.uk/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 16:24:08 GMT