With this analysis, I'm not sure there is such a thing as a transparent market then. Is there? ___
Lisa Janicke Hinchliffe lisalibrar...@gmail.com On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 11:01 AM Heather Morrison < heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> 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 > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of > Lisa Hinchliffe <lisalibrar...@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 10:51:10 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *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 > lisalibrar...@gmail.com > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 9:37 AM Heather Morrison < > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca> 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 > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > ------------------------------ > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of > Pieper, Dirk <dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 4, 2019 4:30:09 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *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:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org] *Im > Auftrag von *Heather Morrison > *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 3. September 2019 21:07 > *An:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *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/ > > > > 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 > > heather.morri...@uottawa.ca > > https://uniweb.uottawa.ca/?lang=en#/members/706 > > [On research sabbatical July 1, 2019 - June 30, 2020] > > > ------------------------------ > > *From:* goal-boun...@eprints.org <goal-boun...@eprints.org> on behalf of > Pieper, Dirk <dirk.pie...@uni-bielefeld.de> > *Sent:* Monday, September 2, 2019 4:00 AM > *To:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *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:* goal-boun...@eprints.org [mailto:goal-boun...@eprints.org > <goal-boun...@eprints.org>] *Im Auftrag von *Peter Murray-Rust > *Gesendet:* Samstag, 31. August 2019 17:18 > *An:* Global Open Access List (Successor of AmSci) <goal@eprints.org> > *Cc:* wam...@list.nih.gov; radicalopenacc...@jiscmail.ac.uk; scholcomm < > scholc...@lists.ala.org> > *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 <ch...@chriszielinski.com> > 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 > ch...@chriszielinski.com > Blogs: http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and > http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com > Research publications: http://www.researchgate.net > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > 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 > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal > > _______________________________________________ > GOAL mailing list > GOAL@eprints.org > http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal >
_______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list GOAL@eprints.org http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
