41 ms·

As a taxpayer, you already pay state universities to access those papers. If every paper was published as open-access, I am sure the price of open-access could

As a taxpayer, you already pay state universities to access those papers. If every paper was published as open-access, I am sure the price of open-access could be reduced.

ikeboy 11y ago
>If every paper was published as open-access, I am sure the price of open-access could be reduced. Do you have any evidence of such economies of scale in existing publishers? As the article says, their margins are around 30%. That means the maximum they could reduce the price without losing money (with simplifying assumptions) is in the 30% range. If you have a way to be significantly more efficient than the status quo, go ahead, I'm sure everyone will be thrilled. >As a taxpayer, you already pay state universities to access those papers. That's a fair point. Is the government paying more in access fees than they're saving by not using open access journals?
- skybrian 11y ago
  You can't take the costs provided by journals as a minimum because they are likely providing services that are no longer necessary or could be made much more efficient. Here's an example of how to do it on the cheap: "Scholastica charges us $10 per submission. We have a grant to cover this and our other costs, which are very low. Our total costs probably average about $30 per accepted article. Therefore, there are no charges for authors, and obviously there are no charges for readers either. A typical article processing charge for one article published in a traditional journal would keep us going for around 50 published articles." https://discrete-analysis.scholasticahq.com/post/40-welcome-to-discrete-analysis https://discrete-analysis.scholasticahq.com/post/40-welcome-...
  - ikeboy 11y ago
    If authors find that such journals fulfil their needs, then the traditional publishers will have been outcompeted. But make that case directly; don't yell at traditional publishers for being expensive, when they also provide far more service. If you don't think it's needed, don't use it.
    - moyix 11y ago
      That's the problem with the current system, though. The authors aren't choosing a journal for the extra services the publishers provide, they're choosing it for the prestige associated with e.g. Nature. It's similar to the reason why any new social network, no matter what features it has, would have a hard time competing with Facebook.
      - greeneggs 11y ago
        This isn't entirely true. Authors try to publish in Nature not just because of its prestige, but also because it provides a wider audience. If you have a strong result that you think would be interesting to a wider audience, then publishing in Nature or Science, rather than a specialized journal, makes sense. Additionally, these journals really do provide more services than most specialized journals. In particular, the editorial service at Nature or Science is of much higher quality than your typical specialized journal. The editing includes editing the text for language and clarity, typesetting, and commissioning third-party high-level summaries (Nature's "News and Views" section). In contrast, at least in computer science and mathematics, most journals do minimal, if any, editing. The editors of prestigious journals do add value, and this helps to maintain the journals' relatively broad audiences.

As a taxpayer, you already pay state universities to access those papers. If every paper was published as open-access, I am sure the price of open-access could be reduced.

ikeboy 11y ago

>If every paper was published as open-access, I am sure the price of open-access could be reduced. Do you have any evidence of such economies of scale in existing publishers? As the article says, their margins are around 30%. That means the maximum they could reduce the price without losing money (with simplifying assumptions) is in the 30% range. If you have a way to be significantly more efficient than the status quo, go ahead, I'm sure everyone will be thrilled. >As a taxpayer, you already pay state universities to access those papers. That's a fair point. Is the government paying more in access fees than they're saving by not using open access journals?

skybrian 11y ago
You can't take the costs provided by journals as a minimum because they are likely providing services that are no longer necessary or could be made much more efficient. Here's an example of how to do it on the cheap: "Scholastica charges us $10 per submission. We have a grant to cover this and our other costs, which are very low. Our total costs probably average about $30 per accepted article. Therefore, there are no charges for authors, and obviously there are no charges for readers either. A typical article processing charge for one article published in a traditional journal would keep us going for around 50 published articles." https://discrete-analysis.scholasticahq.com/post/40-welcome-to-discrete-analysis https://discrete-analysis.scholasticahq.com/post/40-welcome-...
- ikeboy 11y ago
  If authors find that such journals fulfil their needs, then the traditional publishers will have been outcompeted. But make that case directly; don't yell at traditional publishers for being expensive, when they also provide far more service. If you don't think it's needed, don't use it.
  - moyix 11y ago
    That's the problem with the current system, though. The authors aren't choosing a journal for the extra services the publishers provide, they're choosing it for the prestige associated with e.g. Nature. It's similar to the reason why any new social network, no matter what features it has, would have a hard time competing with Facebook.
    - greeneggs 11y ago
      This isn't entirely true. Authors try to publish in Nature not just because of its prestige, but also because it provides a wider audience. If you have a strong result that you think would be interesting to a wider audience, then publishing in Nature or Science, rather than a specialized journal, makes sense. Additionally, these journals really do provide more services than most specialized journals. In particular, the editorial service at Nature or Science is of much higher quality than your typical specialized journal. The editing includes editing the text for language and clarity, typesetting, and commissioning third-party high-level summaries (Nature's "News and Views" section). In contrast, at least in computer science and mathematics, most journals do minimal, if any, editing. The editors of prestigious journals do add value, and this helps to maintain the journals' relatively broad audiences.