David, you're correct that many libraries have subscriptions to various
journals, and are capable of getting an article via interlibrary loan.
However, this is simply a case of passing the buck. Do you think
publishers give free access to libraries and universities?
They do not. The subscription fees that libraries pay are exceedingly
steep, and as library budgets have been getting slashed, many have been
cutting back substantially on their journal access, counting on others
within the library system to maintain subscriptions. And, of course,
every interlibrary loan request costs time, labor, and money to the
communities involved. Surely it is more socially efficient to charge a
few dollars for an article, and make it easily available to people, than
it is to charge a large sum to a library, and then incur additional
labor costs to shuttle a document around from place to place?
The cost of distribution for the publishers is essentially nil, given
that they already have invested in the sites in place to distribute
their articles, whether they cost $50 or $2. Electrons are quite
cheap. This is a simple case of an industry with substantial monopoly
power engaging in rent seeking. A simple search on "academic publisher
profits" would be extremely enlightening, I suspect. Here is a good
place to start: http://www.economist.com/node/18744177
-m
On 1/9/2012 9:51 AM, David L. McNeely wrote:
---- Jane Shevtsov<[email protected]> wrote:
I just checked, and ESA charges nonsubscribers $20 for a single article
published in the December 2011 issue of Ecology. How is that reasonable?
And I'm no business maven, but isn't that far past the optimal price point
in terms of revenue generation? I could see paying $2 or $3 for an article
if I was an infrequent reader, but $20?
There's a good blog post on what alternatives publishers might support at<
http://researchremix.wordpress.com/2012/01/07/what-should-the-publishers-lobby-for/
.
Is it really so difficult to get a paper? I have never been unable to get a
paper I wanted or needed, and I have never paid the high prices that publishers
demand for instant access on the internet. Most of us live within 50 miles of
a library. If the library does not subscribe to the journal in which the paper
appears, interlibrary loan will get it for a reasonable cost. The real problem
is the demand for instant gratification that we have developed. It is that
that we are being asked to pay for.
Should a paper cost $50? I really don't know what it costs the journal to
produce the paper, what the demand is (well, for some papers the demand is
virtually nothing), or what distribution costs. I do know that such services
as BioOne have greatly improved the bottom lines of some scholarly
organizations, which in the long run makes papers more available, not less.
I guess in this one instance I am suggesting that free market is not so bad.
If you really must have the paper the instant you locate it through the free
search and free abstract mechanisms of the publishers, why then pay the asking
price. Otherwise, use more traditional means of getting it. If publishers are
getting the asking price, they will maintain it, or maybe ask a little more.
If they are not getting it, they will back off.
If you are so far back in the sticks that you don't have ready access to a
library, investigate a bit. I'll bet some library serves you if you find out
how. If you are living in a cabin off the traveled roads and off the grid,
then you don't have internet access either, so your complaints about no open
access are moot.
David McNeely
Jane Shevtsov
On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 9:08 PM, M.S. Patterson<[email protected]>wrote:
Here's an additional opinion on the matter, and it is rather less
charitable:
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.**com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
*Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29><
http://phylogenomics.**blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-**
ecological-society-of-america.**html?utm_source=feedburner&**
utm_medium=twitter&utm_**campaign=Feed%3A+**TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+*
*Life%29<http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com/2012/01/yhgtbfkm-ecological-society-of-america.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheTreeOfLife+%28The+Tree+of+Life%29>
The fact that ESA forces authors to cede the copyright to their work is
offensive, IMO, even if they 'grant' the author reprint or reproduction
rights. It also means that ESA could choose to rewrite their rules such
that authors could lose rights to reprint or reproduce their own work.
Academic publishers should be granted first printing rights, with the
option to acquire additional rights at a later date, as they desire.
Nothing more. As it currently stands, ESA's policy is essentially
treating research articles as work-made-for-hire, which is ludicrous, given
that authors must pay page charges to print the work! In essence
researchers are paying to have their work printed, while ceding all of
their rights to the publisher in the process.
Further, I don't think anyone is suggesting that ESA should be denied all
subscription fees (or page fees), but simply that papers should become
available publicly over time, and that any research funded by public monies
should be available to the public sooner rather than later. Which is
entirely reasonable, and more than likely beneficial to the public.
-m
On 1/5/2012 12:33 AM, Jane Shevtsov wrote:
Fellow Ecologgers,
Have people read ESA's response to a proposed requirement that the results
of federally funded research be publicly available, possibly after an
embargo period? It's available here.
http://www.esa.org/pao/**policyStatements/Letters/**
ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI20**11.pdf<http://www.esa.org/pao/policyStatements/Letters/ESAResponsetoPublicAccessRFI2011.pdf>
I have to say I find this response somewhat disappointing. While some of
the concerns raised in it are certainly valid, I believe it underestimates
ecologists' desire to read an interesting new paper now rather than later.
Also, kudos to ESA for allowing authors to freely post their papers
online,
something I relied on when I didn't have university journal access, but
how
is this financially different from open access? ESA's 2009 financial
statement (the latest available online) may be of interest.
http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/**docs/FS2009.pdf<http://www.esa.org/aboutesa/docs/FS2009.pdf>
Thoughts?
Jane Shevtsov
--
Matt Patterson
MSES/MPA 2012
Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental Change
(CIPEC)
Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799
Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations<http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.**
com<http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com>>
--
-------------
Jane Shevtsov
Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia
co-founder, www.worldbeyondborders.org
"She has future plans and dreams at night.
They tell her life is hard; she says 'That's all right'." --Faith Hill,
"Wild One"
--
David McNeely
--
Matt Patterson
MSES/MPA 2012
Indiana University School of Public and Environmental Affairs
Center for the study of Institutions, Population and Environmental
Change (CIPEC)
Room 226A | 408 N Indiana Ave | Bloomington, IN 47408-3799
Environmentally Scientific Emblogulations
<http://env-sci-blog.blogspot.com>
