Category Archives: oa.prices

UK students launch ebook petition. – Campaign to investigate the Library ebook market

Posted on by
Reply

“Students at the University of Worcester (UK) have launched an #ebooksos petition calling for the fair pricing of ebooks. The students ask that people support their efforts to ‘ensure all students have access to the essential digital resources required for their studies and success‘, before stating,We are particularly concerned about those from disadvantaged or less privileged backgrounds, who may be unable to afford the cost of purchasing books required for their courses, resulting in inequality in education.Some examples of the “astronomical” costs their library has been expected to pay for ebooks, in comparison to the hardcopy equivalents, are included to illustrate the problem….”

On salmon and for-profit journal publishing | Scientist Sees Squirrel

Posted on by
Reply

“This reminds me of salmon. At my local supermarket, fresh salmon is very expensive – about $46/kg when I checked just now. Some of that is because salmon are expensive to catch, but some of that is because salmon fishing, processing, and sales are all done by for-profit enterprises.* I could find this outrageous, I suppose; but instead, I just don’t buy salmon. I don’t mind salmon; but I don’t love it enough to justify its price, especially compared to other fish species at ¼ to ½ the price. Other folks do love salmon enough to justify its price, so they buy it, and they enjoy it.

Now read that paragraph again, but every time you see the word “salmon”, substitute “publishing in Nature”.

If we’re outraged at the cost of publishing in for-profit journals, we could simply not publish in them. There’s perfectly good but much cheaper fish out there, including excellent (and non-profit) society-run journals. (In my own field, The American Naturalist and Ecology are just two of dozens of superb society-run journals; there are non-profits without society affiliations too.) If we chose not to publish in for-profit journals, we wouldn’t be paying the fees we’re outraged by. If enough of us made that choice, those fees would fall.** Not to nothing – publishing well costs money, and non-profit journals charge to publish too – but by a lot….”

Going for Gold, Deep in the Red | Library Journal

Posted on by
Reply

“Athletes with their eyes on a gold medal know it can take years of hard work, patience, and a little bit of luck to achieve. Often, the gold is tantalizingly close but just out of reach. For many in scholarly communications, the same could be said of the path to open access (OA), where flipping a publication to gold OA remains the ultimate victory.

Having survived the budget uncertainties following the Great Recession and during the COVID-19 pandemic, libraries are no strangers to the hard work, patience, and luck needed when it comes to budget planning and pushing publishers toward OA. But will libraries ever achieve the ultimate feat of bagging gold OA for all titles in all disciplines? Open access comes at a price; a gold sweep may not be possible as many institutions continue to struggle financially with the after-effects of the pandemic and lower enrollment figures. Libraries at institutions that have recovered financially, or where enrollment numbers continue to remain strong, are still nervously monitoring an economy that has, for the last two years, continuously threatened to slip into recession. And as more publishers successfully transition their revenue streams from annual or multiyear subscriptions to transformative OA agreements, some librarians wonder if academia will remain locked in a “different lipstick, same pig” model that does nothing to fundamentally change the way scholarly communications is dominated by a few large publishers….

Librarians and researchers are finally seeing the goals of OA mandates come to fruition en masse as transformative agreements become commonplace. Commercial publishers will undoubtedly continue to pivot sales and pricing strategies to what so far remains a profitable publishing model; market-research company Simba Information predicts that revenue from OA journals will represent 22 percent of all journal revenue by 2026. Still, as big deals become nostalgia and publishers focus their efforts on transformative agreements, many librarians remain frustrated with opaque pricing structures. cOAlition S’s newly launched Journal Comparison Service, where publishers can register and deposit price and service data, may appease those whose main argument against high profits in scholarly communications is the lack of transparency surrounding the actual publishing costs. (Two of the biggest publishers, Elsevier and Springer Nature, have so far declined to participate, and it’s unclear if pricing transparency will have any effect on where researchers choose to publish.)

The big question is what effect the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s (OSTP) August 2022 announcement, which recommended that federal agencies make the results of taxpayer-supported research publicly accessible by 2026, will have on the OA business model generally. Unlike cOAlition S’s 2018 Plan S initiative, the OSTP memo does not prescribe any particular business model, so the most profitable path will probably drive how public access is made available. For large publishers, gold OA seems to offer a source of sustainable revenue. Smaller publishers may also determine that they need to shift to gold OA to survive, even though many journals are not currently sustainable under APC models. Institutions that publish may feel further squeezed if gold OA becomes the dominant model, and may eventually need to scale back what they are willing to pay for….”

bjoern.brembs.blog » How about paying extra for peer-review?

Posted on by
Reply

“Taking all of the above together, the total cost of an average peer-reviewed journal article would increase from about US$2,800 now to about US$6,400 with adequately paid peer-review. Add to that a conservative profit margin in this sector of around 30% and the average price for a peer-reviewed journal article would come to US$8,320.

Compared to now, paying peer-reviewers adequately would stand to more than double the price of an average article from ~4k to >8k and increase publisher profits from now 1.2k to nearly 2k per article. Those are the figures one needs to take into account in this discussion.”

Developing a globally fair pricing model for Open Access academic publishing | Plan S

Posted on by
Reply

“cOAlition S is seeking to engage the services of a consultant to explore how a globally fair pricing system for academic publishing could be devised and implemented. The European Science Foundation, which hosts the cOAlition S office, will award the contract on behalf of cOAlition S.

 

cOAlition S is participating with  UNESCO, the International Science Council (ISC), the Open Access 2020 Initiative (OA2020), Electronic Information for Libraries (EIFL), the Association of African Universities, and Science Europe in organising a series of workshops on global equity in Open Access publishing. The first of these workshops focused on viewpoints from Europe and Africa, and participants formulated a variety of proposals, including a call for publishers to adopt more equitable practices, including but not limited to transparent pricing of Open Access publishing services based on purchasing power parity (PPP).

As a follow-up to the workshop, cOAlition S wishes to commission a study to explore how a globally fair pricing system for academic publishing could be devised and implemented. We will work with our partners in the Global Equity Workshop in taking this forward.

The key objective of this study is to identify ways in which readers and producers of scholarly publications (or their proxies, namely research funders and universities, could financially contribute to supporting the academic publishing services valued by their research communities as a function of their means in a manner that is globally equitable and sustainable….”

PLOS Price Transparency Update 2021

Posted on by
Reply

We encourage researchers to give transparent insight into their work for the benefit of community understanding and assessment and we want to give you the same insight into ours. 

One of the ways we do this is through the Plan S Price & Service Transparency Framework. PLOS has participated in the framework since its pilot phase in 20201 and we’re pleased to once again share our reporting here to give our community insight into how our publication fees are used to support journal activities and operational costs. 

The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Influence on Resident Research, 2015 to 2019 – Advances in Radiation Oncology

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  Purpose

While a rising share of scientific research articles are being published in open access (OA) journals, their impact on resident research in radiation oncology is unknown. Thus, we sought to determine the number, content, and costs of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles radiation oncology residents in the United States (US) published in OA journals in recent years.

 

Methods and Materials

We built a database of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by US radiation oncology residents who graduated between 2015 and 2019. We then classified each journal in which these articles appeared as either OA or non-OA and obtained the current article-processing charge (APC) for each publication that appeared in an OA journal.

 

Results

The residents in this study published 2637 first-author, PubMed-searchable articles, 555 of which (21.0%) appeared in 138 OA journals. The number of publications in OA journals per resident increased from 0.47 for the class of 2015 to 0.79 for the class of 2019. Publications in OA journals garnered fewer citations than those in non-OA journals (8.9 vs 14.9, P < .01). Furthermore, 90.6% of OA journals levy an APC for original research reports (median, $1896), which is positively correlated with their 2019 impact factor (r = 0.63, P < .01). Aggregate APCs totaled $900,319.21 and appeared to increase over the study period.

 

Conclusions

The number of first-author, PubMed-searchable articles published by graduating US radiation oncology residents in OA journals rose significantly between 2015 and 2019. To maximize the benefits of OA publishing in the future, US radiation oncology residents will need to ensure that they use vetted OA journals to publish their research findings and avoid predatory journals.

Texas consortium of 44 colleges strikes deal with Elsevier

Posted on by
Reply

” “If you want open access to become the universal model of access to scholarship, then [this deal] … is going to feel like a real setback,” Rick Anderson, university librarian at Brigham Young University, said, referring to the set of principles and practices in which research articles are available online free, without barriers. “But if you’re OK with the subscription model in principle and just want to see it work better for all parties, then this deal provides what may be a very useful template.”…

Lower Costs, More (Though Not Open) Access

In the agreement, Elsevier said it will cap annual increases at 2 percent, which is lower than the industry standard—“startlingly low,” Anderson said. That near-term cost certainty will allow member institutions to budget responsibly, according to Charles Weaver, associate dean for sciences and professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University, who served on the consortium’s negotiating team. Baylor is a consortium member.

The deal also includes a pilot project in which article copyrights revert to authors “after a period of time that will be collaboratively determined” by consortium members and Elsevier, according to the news release. In addition, authors affiliated with the consortium who publish open access will pay discounted author publication charges….

But some, including some consortium members, see some shortcomings.

“Our institution would have liked to see more increased focus on open-access publishing,” said Catherine Rudowsky, dean of university libraries at Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi, who served on the steering committee and whose institution is a coalition member. “We appreciated the reduced author publication charges, but at the end of the day, we are still paying Elsevier to read and to publish. We will not solve the world’s biggest problems by limiting access to research and by controlling information.” …”

Texas consortium of 44 colleges strikes deal with Elsevier

Posted on by
Reply

” “If you want open access to become the universal model of access to scholarship, then [this deal] … is going to feel like a real setback,” Rick Anderson, university librarian at Brigham Young University, said, referring to the set of principles and practices in which research articles are available online free, without barriers. “But if you’re OK with the subscription model in principle and just want to see it work better for all parties, then this deal provides what may be a very useful template.”…

Lower Costs, More (Though Not Open) Access

In the agreement, Elsevier said it will cap annual increases at 2 percent, which is lower than the industry standard—“startlingly low,” Anderson said. That near-term cost certainty will allow member institutions to budget responsibly, according to Charles Weaver, associate dean for sciences and professor of psychology and neuroscience at Baylor University, who served on the consortium’s negotiating team. Baylor is a consortium member.

The deal also includes a pilot project in which article copyrights revert to authors “after a period of time that will be collaboratively determined” by consortium members and Elsevier, according to the news release. In addition, authors affiliated with the consortium who publish open access will pay discounted author publication charges….

But some, including some consortium members, see some shortcomings.

“Our institution would have liked to see more increased focus on open-access publishing,” said Catherine Rudowsky, dean of university libraries at Texas A&M University at Corpus Christi, who served on the steering committee and whose institution is a coalition member. “We appreciated the reduced author publication charges, but at the end of the day, we are still paying Elsevier to read and to publish. We will not solve the world’s biggest problems by limiting access to research and by controlling information.” …”

Library Coalition agreement with Elsevier results in lower costs, greater access – Odessa American

Posted on by
Reply

“All TLCUA members will receive a discount on journal subscriptions–some as high as 30%–while still maintaining significant amounts of access to journals and combined, will realize a savings of over $4.75M annually. Beyond initial cost savings, Elsevier agreed to a maximum annual increase of 2% over the course of the license agreement, with some years as low as 0%, which is significantly lower than industry standard.

TLCUA and Elsevier have agreed to partner on a pilot project to revert ownership of journal articles back to original authors—and not just those at TLCUA-member institutions. Currently, authors transfer copyright of their work in exchange for that work being published. This pilot will provide for rights to go back to authors after a period of time that will be collaboratively determined with Elsevier. A subset of Elsevier journals will be chosen to study the impact of the copyright reversion pilot for authors and its applicability more broadly to STEM (scientific, technical, engineering and medical) publishers, the release said….”

ARL Statement on Texas Library Coalition for United Action Agreement with Elsevier – Association of Research Libraries

Posted on by
Reply

“Today more than 40 public and private academic institutions in Texas—members of the Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA)—announced the conclusion of a successful negotiation with Elsevier. TLCUA member libraries secured cost savings on journal subscription access, along with a set of favorable license terms and a novel pilot experiment in restoration of author copyrights that stands to benefit all authors, not just those associated with TLCUA member institutions….”

Texas Universities Reach Historic Deal with Elsevier: TLCUA Saves Texas Universities Millions Collectively

Posted on by
Reply

Texas Library Coalition for United Action (TLCUA) is pleased to announce that it has concluded negotiations with Elsevier, and all TLCUA members have signed or are finalizing new agreements for subscription journal access. In 2019, 44 public and private university campuses across Texas joined together to form TLCUA to think creatively about access to faculty publications and the sustainability of journal subscriptions. TLCUA has negotiated with Elsevier, the world’s largest publisher of scientific journals, including The Lancet and Cell and over 2,500 other journals covering topics in medicine, biology, psychology, engineering, business and more. The TLCUA effort aligns with other libraries across academia that have sought to evolve the relationship between libraries and publishers and find new ways to thrive together.

All TLCUA members will receive a discount on journal subscriptions—some as high as 30%—while still maintaining significant amounts of access to journals and combined, will realize a savings of over $4.75M annually. Beyond initial cost savings, Elsevier agreed to a maximum annual increase of 2% over the course of the license agreement, with some years as low as 0%, which is significantly lower than industry standard.

Ratios for Evaluating Full-Text Journal Article Access: A Quantitative Study: The Serials Librarian: Vol 0, No 0

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract:  This article proposes a methodology for systematically assessing the cost of journal subscriptions. The authors of the paper (hereafter “the researchers”) established ratios comparing the list costs of journal articles as advertised by publishers against the cost per article of journal articles available in aggregated collections in library databases (hereafter “aggregating databases”). The researchers propose that the ratios can be used by libraries wishing to apply a standard methodology for assessing journal packages containing full-text articles. The study may be helpful for those librarians who seek to supplement qualitative information and other quantitative data, such as usage statistics, in order to demonstrate the library’s rationale for providing journal access either by purchasing articles directly from a publisher as needed or by continuing to subscribe to an aggregating database. The aggregating databases reviewed in this study included representative aggregating databases commonly associated with the following fields of study: Social Sciences, Humanities, and Health Sciences; however, the methodology described in this article could be applied to other disciplines as well. The results of the study indicated that the ratios for Mean Cost/Package Subscription Price (MC/PSP), Median Cost/Package Subscription Price (MED/PSP) could be used in evaluating journal collections. The researchers suggest that future studies should be conducted to assess resource sharing and the availability of open access resource versions of articles as possible contributing factors to the purchase decisions associated with scholarly journal articles.

 

Recommendations for Transformative Journal Agreements with Providers of Publishing Services: Guidelines of the priority initiative “Digital Information” of the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany, against the background of the implementation of the Open Access Strategy 2021–2025 of the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany :: GFZpublic

Posted on by
Reply

“With its internal Open Access Strategy 2021–2025, the Alliance of Science Organisations in Germany provides a framework to further shape the process of transforming the scholarly publishing system to open access. The Alliance’s main aim is to create and design structures in publishing that benefit science. As key challenges of the transformation, the science organizations have identified the following aspects that need to be addressed: ? the transformational effectiveness of future transformative agreements, and the prevention of long-term “double dipping” ? the avoidance of excessive cost increases for open access, and of complexity or lack of transparency of pricing structures ? the consideration and reduction of increases in administrative complexity ? the possible exacerbation of vendor lock-in by new services and tools of the same provider, and the consideration of this situation when making investment decisions ? measures against the impairment of researchers’ informational self-determination in the digital space To implement the Open Access Strategy 2021–2025, four measures intended to shape the open access transformation in Germany were defined. The present criteria have been developed within the framework of the measure “Further Design and Implementation of the Transformation of the Content of Commercial Providers.” With this measure, the science organizations are pursuing the aim of reducing costs and improving the conditions for specialized scientific information within the framework of contractual agreements with providers of publishing services. Thus, the criteria formulated here will serve in the future as a common, action-guiding framework for actors from all science organizations—that is, higher education institutions as well as non-university research institutions—for negotiations with providers of publishing services. The call for the greatest possible cost transparency and cost efficiency in the system as a whole forms the core of the actions of the science organizations in the context of their Open Access Strategy 2021–2025….”

The dark side of the textbook publishing market – University Library | University of Saskatchewan

Posted on by
Reply

“To accommodate students who may be struggling financially, instructors will often request that the library purchase a copy of their course-required commercial e-textbook to place on reserve. However, many textbook publishers or vendors will not sell electronic versions of their books to libraries (like VitalSource) since it is more profitable to sell directly to students. If e-textbooks are available for libraries to purchase, they are often unreasonably priced (see this crowd-sourced spreadsheet of examples) and come with restrictive licensing (e.g., limited simultaneous users, limited ability to download and print). For example, several of the academic publishers we work with and buy from regularly have started classifying their eBooks as either ‘eBooks for library sale’, or ‘eTextbooks, only available for individual student purchase’. Some of the publishers that we deal with who have these restrictions on textbooks include: …”