4 ms·

Thanks, that's a good explanation of open access funding trade-offs. Traditional publishing erects paywalls for readers (buying a subscription or pay per-artic

by jrapdx3 11y ago

Thanks, that's a good explanation of open access funding trade-offs. Traditional publishing erects paywalls for readers (buying a subscription or pay per-article fees) but not for authors. OTOH open-access has paywalls for authors (or author's employer), but none for readers. In 2002 the required payment was $500, probably about equivalent to current author fees. Presumably it offsets the administrative costs involved in running the journal website and overseeing the peer review process. I don't have first hand knowledge regarding costs of publication or profit margins, but the expense must be paid by someone, generically authors or readers. I was willing to pay because I regarded wide exposure of the data I was reporting as important, my contribution to the benefit of the community at large. In retrospect, I guess the fact that the article has been viewed several thousand times (and cited by numerous subsequent reports) is a much greater readership than it would have garnered behind a steep paywall.

padraic7a 11y ago
It's somewhat shortsighted to see this as a situation where the reader pays versus one where the researcher pays. In both cases it is typically the university which pays. In one model the library pays, in the other it might be an academic department, research office or the library which pays. Gold open access [the pay to publish model] is distinct from Green open access [where no payment is required]. Many publishers, like Elsevier are adopting a 'hybrid' model where they charge both to publish , and to read. While there are costs to publishing one they don't justify teh huge fees [and profits] that Elsevier make. One would have to assume that the major, technical infrastructure Elsevier etc implement is to keep their texts inaccessible. A new OA publisher, the Open Library of Humanities is trying a new model, where neither reader not author pay. Instead the suite of journals is funded by an international consortium of libraries.

by jrapdx3 11y ago

padraic7a 11y ago

It's somewhat shortsighted to see this as a situation where the reader pays versus one where the researcher pays. In both cases it is typically the university which pays. In one model the library pays, in the other it might be an academic department, research office or the library which pays. Gold open access [the pay to publish model] is distinct from Green open access [where no payment is required]. Many publishers, like Elsevier are adopting a 'hybrid' model where they charge both to publish , and to read. While there are costs to publishing one they don't justify teh huge fees [and profits] that Elsevier make. One would have to assume that the major, technical infrastructure Elsevier etc implement is to keep their texts inaccessible. A new OA publisher, the Open Library of Humanities is trying a new model, where neither reader not author pay. Instead the suite of journals is funded by an international consortium of libraries.