Publishing Reform

---

SUMMARY: Replies to (anonymized) queries about whether journals should convert to Green or Gold today:
(1) Going Green means endorsing immediate (unembargoed) self-archiving by authors.
(2) Going Gold means either:
      (2a) making the entire online edition free for all and continuing to sell the hard copy edition by subscription, as now, or
      (2b) charging an extra fee per article to author-institutions for making their individual article free online on their behalf, on the publisher's website (optional Gold "Open Choice"), or
      (2c) abandoning the subscription model and the hard copy edition entirely, and charging the author-institutions for publishing in the online (and only) edition.
   Going Green carries some risk to subscriptions, but that is unlikely to be significant till after 100% Green self-archiving is being reliably practised by all authors for all journals. Going Gold via (2a) would be far riskier, needlessly, because Green OA grows anarchically, article by article, whereas Gold OA is total and immediate for the journal. Going optional Gold via (2b) would essentially be to levy a gratuitous extra author charge for self-archiving; while continuing to sell the hard copy edition for subscriptions this would be a highly retrogressive step -- indeed, a Trojan Horse -- except if it was also coupled with going Green (1), in which case it would be fine). And (2c) would be needlessly to jettison the hard copy edition and subscription revenue pre-emptively, for no particular reason.
    Journals wishing to do something to help Open Access (OA) should go Green and then wait to see what happens. Green might eventually propel all journals to (2c). (Going Green (1) and hybrid Gold, (2b), is also a reasonable option, though there will not be many takers for optional Gold, with or without mandates, unless the asking price is negligibly low.)

---

The following query has been anonymized:

Anon.: "Journal [JX] has a useful (but declining) revenue stream for the hard copy version. At the moment authors have to wait for 1 year before being permitted to put up their published papers on their own website. I'd like to see JX go OA and was hoping that all the UK Research Councils would insist on this for any papers published as a result of public money distributed in the form of research grants."

At this point in time it makes much more sense for a journal like JX to (1) go Green on author OA self-archiving than to convert to (2) OA Gold publishing.

(1) Going Green means endorsing immediate author self-archiving (no embargo).

(2) Going Gold means either:

(2a) making the entire online edition free for all and continuing to sell the hard copy edition for subscriptions, as now, or

(2b) charging an extra fee per article to author-institutions for making that article free online on the publisher's website (hybrid Gold "Open Choice"), or

(2c) abandoning the subscription model and the hard copy edition entirely, and charging the author-institutions for publishing in the online (and only) edition.

Going Green entails some possibility of risk to subscriptions, but that is unlikely to be significant -- it has not caused detectable cancellations for the other 62% of journals that are Green, including the physics journals that have been Green longest (over a decade) and some of whose contents have been 100% self-archived for years now.

Going Gold via (2a) would be far riskier, and needlessly so, than going Green (1), because Green OA grows anarchically, article by article, whereas Gold OA is total and immediate for the journal.

Going hybrid Gold via (2b) would essentially be to make a gratuitous extra author charge for self-archiving -- a highly retrogressive step (unless also coupled with going Green), while continuing to sell the hard copy edition for subscriptions.

And (2c) would be to needlessly jettison the hard copy edition and subscription revenue pre-emptively, for no particular reason.

JX should go Green and then wait to see what happens. Green might eventually propel all journals to (2c), but it certainly won't do it to JX alone, nor soon. (Going Green (1) and hybrid Gold (2b) is also a reasonable option, though you will not have many takers for optional Gold, with or without mandates, unless the fee is negligibly low.)

Anon.: "However, I'm told that EPSRC is holding out, for the moment, against OA as a result of protests from [Society SX] and [Society SY] that they'll be in serious trouble if they lose the revenue stream from their hard copy journals (but in the end this is going to happen anyway it seems to me ...)"

It is not entirely clear why EPSRC is holding out against mandating Green OA. Whatever the reason, it's a bad and counterproductive one, for research, and if SX and/or SY are behind it, all three ought to be named and shamed. In any case, I agree that Green OA is going to happen anyway.

Anon.: "Can you confirm that this is the case? Are EPSRC the only refuseniks? What about MRC?"

Five of the 7 UK research councils have already mandated Green OA (including the MRC). The only two holdouts are EPSRC and AHRC (and AHRC are considering adopting a Green OA mandate). EPSRC have instead decided to wait for the outcome of a long-term "study" of the impact of mandating Green. (Nonsense, of course, because the only way to study its effects is to mandate it.)

Anon.: "As you can imagine UK publicly-funded researchers who want to submit to [JX] are more likely to be getting money from EPSRC than any other of the Councils so this is the one I really need to know about."

Sorry I don't know any more -- except that there is a chance that the UK universities may also mandate Green OA (as a few, such as Southampton and Brunel have already done). In that case, whether or not they are funded by EPSRC, UK authors will all be self-archiving, no matter what journal they publish in.

And of course there is also the European ERC Green OA mandate, and the prospect of more mandates, worldwide.

Anon.: "Any other insight(s) gratefully received."

My suggestion: Urge JX to go Green (and, optionally, also hybrid/optional Gold, 2b) and leave it at that for now. Journal embargoes are in any case easily defeasible by ID/OA mandates (Immediate-Deposit, Optional-Access) paired with the "Fair Use" Button

Anon.: "Sorry to bother you again but it's been drawn to my attention that that [the publisher (PX) of Journal JX already has a hybrid-Gold "Open Choice" policy of selling OA as an option to the author-institution, by the article, for a fee, but PX otherwise embargoes author self-archiving for a year.]

As far as I can see this is an attempt by [PX] to do experiments on what you call Optional Gold (2b) without at the same time allowing immediate Green self-archiving (1)

I'd be glad of your opinions -- particularly about the fees PX proposes to charge for making papers instantly available online on an author's behalf."

I think the answer is already implicit in what I recommended above: Optional Gold (2b) is only justified and welcome if the publisher's policy is also Green on immediate author self-archiving (1) (i.e., should the author elect not to opt for the Gold OA option). Otherwise, with a self-archiving embargo, Optional Gold is a Trojan Horse, to be rejected decisively.

As to the asking price for optional-Gold: this currently varies between $500 and $3000 per article and tends to be reckoned by calculating the journal's annual revenue and dividing it by the annual number of articles. A self-serving figure, of course.

(If and when Green OA eventually causes subscriptions to become unsustainable, it will not only release the institutional subscription funds to be used instead to pay for Gold OA publishing charges, but it will also drive those charges down to a fair and realistic price -- probably just the cost of implementing peer review. So Caveat Pre-Emptor!)

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

SUMMARY: One can calculate the price a subscribing institution pays per article, journal by journal and field by field. The number of institutional subscribers per journal may be listed or estimated, but that's still all revenues rather than costs. If all text-generation, access-provision and archiving are offloaded onto the distributed network of institutional repositories, the only service left for a journal publisher to provide is peer review. The only two factors modulating that cost would be the journal's submission and rejection rates (since the referees are unpaid). That gives a more realistic idea of what Gold OA will cost per article once we have 100% OA (rather than the arbitrary asking-prices we have from today's Gold OA and hybrid Gold "open choice" journals). Green OA self-archiving mandates might have the eventual side-effect of inducing this transition to Gold, but the real objective of OA is not to save money on subscriptions: It is to put an end to needless loss of research usage and impact.This can be achieved by Green OA self-archiving mandates, whether or not they lead to an eventual transition to Gold OA.

---

A fellow OA advocate has just asked me whether I know any research or data on the costs of research journal publication, globally and broken down by discipline and/or journal types.

I had to reply that I wish I did, but even 25 years as editor in chief of a very high impact journal did not give me those figures, even for that one journal!

What is easily calculated, journal by journal and field by field, is the price a subscribing institution pays per article. (That's just the annual institutional subscription price divided by the annual number of articles.)

The publisher's revenue per article is a bit harder to determine: Asking the journal publisher for the number of institutional subscribers may provide it in some cases. Using the average ball-park figure of 800-1200 institutional subscriptions for journal sustainability gives a rough estimate.

But that's still all revenues. Costs are another matter, and not only are those data closely guarded by publishers, but in several respects, their reckoning is arbitrary. There is the usual arbitrary figure of "overhead" and "infrastructure." But apart from that it is very hard to tease out how much the print-run, mark-up, distribution, fulfillment, and advertising cost. And then there is the even vaguer task of estimating what expenses would be left if the paper version were scrapped altogether, and the journal were online only.

And last, and in fact most important, no one can say what costs would be left if there were no online edition either: If all text-generation, access-provision and archiving were offloaded onto the distributed network of institutional repositories, what would be left for a journal publisher to do? To implement the peer review (and possibly a certain amount of copy-editing). The only way to find out how much that would cost, per submitted paper, is not to try to infer and extract it from all of the added costs and services with which it is currently (and hopelessly) co-bundled by conventional publishers, but to see what it is costing, per submitted paper, for an OA publisher that is providing that peer-review service, and that service only.

I suspect that if that figure were looked at directly, in actual cases, the only two factors modulating the size of the cost would be the journal's submission and rejection rates (which might require a separate submission fee and, for accepted papers, an acceptance fee), not the journal's discipline or subject matter. This is because on the service-implementational side (which is all that is being paid for) the only variables are the submission and rejection rates. The thoroughness and rigor of the peer review itself, and the effort put in by referees, will no doubt vary from field to field and journal to journal, but that is not what is being paid for (since the referees are unpaid!). Peer review processing costs are just volume-based.

So I am sorry I could not help with the top-down answer. I do think the bottom-up answer can be derived from actual cases of pure OA journals doing nothing but peer review, or almost nothing but that, today. Then that bottom-up answer can be used to estimate how much would be saved by downsizing today's conventional hybrid (paper/online) journals into such peer-review-only OA journals -- and, more important, it could give us a much more realistic idea of what Gold OA is likely to cost per article, once we have 100% OA (rather than the arbitrary asking prices we have from today's Gold OA and hybrid Gold "open choice" journals -- based usually on dividing their current annual revenues from a journal by the annual number of articles published in that journal).

It does not follow, of course, that established journals will willingly downsize to just the peer-review service and its price! But this brings us back to the far more important and urgent matter of Green OA self-archiving, and Green OA self-archiving mandates:

What might possibly have the eventual side-effect of inducing this downsizing by conventional journals is mandated Green OA self-archiving. The competing functional and cancellation pressure from the free Green OA version might force publishers first to cut needless costs, products and services (the paper edition, then the online edition) and to offload all of those instead onto the network of Green OA IRs. Then still further cancellation pressure might not only force a conversion to the Gold OA cost recovery model, but it would then by the very same token release the institutional subscription cancellation funds that would pay for the institutional per-article Gold OA publishing costs.

Estimates like the ones we've just discussed here -- of the ratio between the current per-article revenue of conventional journals and the per-article costs of an OA peer review service alone -- will give an idea of just how much money would be saved by the cancellations and conversion. A conservative estimate might be 3/1 or 4/1, but the ratio could conceivably even turn out to be as much as an order of magnitude.

The real objective of OA, however, is not to save money on subscriptions: it is to put an end to needlessly lost research usage and impact, so as to maximize research productivity and progress.

The Green-to-Gold transition scenario is just speculation, of course; but as there is already so much idle speculation rampant, I would call it counterspeculation. It is not speculation, however, that the real objective of the OA movement, namely, 100% OA, can be reached by mandating Green OA self-archiving, whether or not it leads to an eventual transition to Gold OA.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

---

SUMMARY: Martin Osborne, the managing editor of the Open Access Journal Theoretical Economics, points out that the publication fee ($75) for his journal is an order of magnitude lower than what I called the "going rate" for Gold OA journal publishing fees. He also points out that if institutional subscriptions were all cancelled and publishing costs were of the order of those charged by his journal, then there would be considerable net savings. I reply that he is quite right to point out that there are Gold OA journals that charge less than the going rate (indeed there are many that do not charge at all). I also agree that the fee his journal charges, though a bit on the low side, is much closer to what will prove to be the true per-article cost of OA publishing, once journals all convert to OA publishing. But the reality is that only about 10% of journals are OA today, and the publishing charges are what they are, today. And with most of the potential funds for paying them still tied up in institutional subscriptions, those publishing charges are an unaffordable burden for most authors, today. They are also an unnecessary burden, if the goal is to provide OA to every published article, to maximize its accessibility, usage and impact, today; for that can be done through Green OA self-archiving, by the research community, for itself, today. In contrast, converting journals to Gold OA, and at an affordable price, is not something the research community can do for itself. The research community can, however, mandate Green OA self-archiving, and thereby provide 100% OA, today. That Green OA itself might in turn eventually generate cost-cutting, downsizing, and conversion to Gold OA by journals, at a fair price, paid for out of the institutional subscription cancellation savings. Meanwhile, it is folly for the research community to just keep waiting for Gold OA, when providing 100% Green OA is already fully within its reach.

---

Martin J. Osborne (MJO), Department of Economics, University of Toronto, wrote in the American Scientist Open Access Forum:

SH: "...This journal will charge about $1000 to publish, which is within the current going rate for OA journal publication fees."

MJO: The "going rate" surely depends on the field. Theoretical Economics, an Open Access journal (of which I happen to be the Managing Editor) charges a submission fee of $75 and no publication fee for authors who use the software standard in our field (LaTeX).

You are quite right. In fact, as Peter Suber frequently points out, the majority of the Gold OA Journals listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) do not charge for publication at all. They either continue to cover publishing costs out of subscriptions, while making their online version freely accessible to all, or they have other sources of funding, such as subsidies or voluntarism.

The (unidentified) journal under discussion here, however, as well as all of the high-profile journals usually associated with OA (such as the PLoS and BMC journals) do charge for publication, and in the same range as the (unidentified) journal under discussion (not yet listed in DOAJ). In addition, there is now a very large number of hybrid-Gold OA journals that offer OA as an option to the author, likewise in the price range in question. (Those journals, not being OA journals, but merely offering an extra OA option to the author are, rightly, not covered by DOAJ.)

So I think the description "current going rate for OA journal publication fees" was quite representative and accurate.

Please note that although I of course endorse publishing in Gold OA journals for authors who can afford to do so today, and I also happen to believe that one day all journals will convert to Gold OA, I am not an advocate of publishing in Gold OA journals as the means of providing OA today. There are nine reasons for this, the decisive three being (3) - (6).

Publishing in OA journals in order to provide OA to one's research output, is nonoptimal and premature today because:

(1) Most journals (90%) are still subscription-based journals today.

(2) Hence institutions' potential publication funds are still tied up in paying for ongoing journal subscriptions today.

(3) OA publishing charges are still far too high today; they need to be reduced to just the true costs of implementing peer review alone (and the price you quote, though on the low side, is much closer to those true costs).

(4) 100% OA can be achieved, immediately, today, through (Green) OA self-archiving, by authors, in their own Institutional Repositories (IRs), depositing their own articles, published in today's conventional, subscription-based journals (90%).

(5) Green OA self-archiving can be, and is being, mandated by researchers' institutions and funders worldwide, in order to maximize research usage and impact, and thereby research productivity and progress.

(6) 100% OA is urgently needed today, indeed it is already greatly overdue; research usage and impact, productivity and progress are being lost daily, and cumulatively, as long as we delay mandating Green OA self-archiving (e.g., waiting instead for Gold).

(7) 100% Green OA may also force cost-reduction and downsizing to the true essentials on the part of conventional subscription-based journals, eventually.

(8) 100% Green OA may also force conventional subscription-based journals to convert to Gold OA, eventually, thereby also freeing the subscription cancellation funds to pay for it.

(9) 100% OA, however, is needed today, not eventually, and Green OA mandates can and will provide it, today, without continuing to wait and hope for an eventual, affordable conversion to Gold OA by all journals, perhaps, some day.

SH: "...This means that for now OA publishing charges are over and above what is already being spent on subscriptions."

MJO: I don't understand the meaning of this claim. Suppose journal X charges a subscription and then journal Y, which is OA, enters the scene. If everyone who used to submit to X switches to Y, the subscription fees will be replaced by submission/publication fees. If X charged $500 per volume to 300 libraries and Y publishes 40 papers per volume, even with a publication fee of $1000, the scientific community will save $110,000 (= 300x$500 - 40x$1000).

Your calculation is absolutely correct -- and I have made it many, many times before: apologies for not posting the links to the Forum this time: they were included in the blogged version of the same posting. "

The True Cost of the Essentials (Implementing Peer Review)"

"Hypothetical Sequel" [after 100% Green Self-Archiving]

However, that calculation misses the critical elements for this transition:

(a) Subscriptions are paid by user-institutions; publication fees are paid by author-institutions.

(b) Individual authors, not institutions, decide, article by article, which journal to publish in and when.

(c) Institutions, collectively guided by their users, decide which journals to subscribe to, yearly, journal by journal.

(d) Publishers decide whether and when to convert to Gold OA publishing fees, and at what price, journal by journal.

Hence one can do the hypothetical a-priori arithmetic all one likes, but that does not convert journals to OA, let alone Gold OA at a price that reflects its true costs; nor does it convert committed institutional subscription budgets to institutional publication-fee budgets for paying those true costs, across all subscribing institutions.

The downsizing and transition to Gold OA is likely to happen eventually, but only after it has first been preceded (and driven) by the transition to 100% Green OA. The transition to Green OA, however -- unlike the transition to Gold OA -- is entirely within the hands and reach of the research community (researchers, their institutions and their funders) today: It merely has to be mandated.

The good news is that the transition to Gold OA -- which is not in the research community's hands -- is far less urgent or consequential than the transition to Green OA, which is in their hands. And the transition to Green OA will already provide the 100% OA that the OA movement is all about, and for.

OA is not about journal affordability; it is about research accessibility. Although it will not solve the journal affordability problem, 100% Green OA will reduce it to a far more minor problem, lacking the urgency it has today, when it is still wrapped up with the research accessibility problem. Research accessibility is the true motivation for OA, for the research community, who are the only ones who can provide OA, and are also its primary beneficiaries.

"The Green and the Gold Roads to Open Access"

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum

This is a reply to an anonymized query:

Identity Deleted:"What do you know about this new journal? [Journal Name deleted]
Is it going to be less expensive than other open access journals with their rather hefty fees?"

(1) OA Journals are a good idea, though a bit premature right now, if the goal is OA: OA can be achieved right now through author self-archiving of articles published in conventional subscription-based journals.

(2) Nevertheless, it is a good idea to support and promote OA journals if one can.

(3) This particular journal will charge about $1000 to publish, which is within the current going rate for OA journal publication fees.

(4) It is specifically because of this publication charge that OA journals are still premature: Right now, most journals are not OA, and most of the potential institutional funds to pay for publication are currently tied up in paying for it via subscriptions.

(5) This means that for now OA publishing charges are over and above what is already being spent on subscriptions.

(6) $1000 per article is not much for some authors, but a lot for others.

(7) What all authors should be doing is self-archiving their articles, to make them OA.

(8) That will not only provide OA, but it will force subscription journals to cut costs and it may eventually force them to convert to OA publishing (at a much lower price).

(9) The existence of viable OA journals today, however, despite the extra costs (some) entail for authors, helps demonstrate that OA publishing is possible, and refutes the claim by some subscription journals that OA means the destruction of journals.

(10) This, in turn, helps encourage authors to self-archive, and encourages institutions and funders to mandate self-archiving, thereby accelerating the provision of OA (and the eventual transition to OA publishing).

So my advice would be this:

(a) If you would otherwise have agreed to serve on the editorial board of a journal like this, then the fact that it is an OA journal should be another point in its favour.

(b) If you were submitting an article to a new journal like this, then the fact that it is an OA journal should be another point in its favour -- if you can afford the publishing charges.

(c) Self-archive all articles you publish in any case, and make sure your institution mandates self-archiving.

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum