際際滷

際際滷Share a Scribd company logo

Open access days presentation

M
mrkwr

The document discusses submission fees in open access journals. It summarizes the results of interviews with 40 journal editors, publishers, librarians and researchers about submission fee models. Some journals currently charge submission fees, citing advantages like improving quality and fairness. However, publishers are mixed in their support due to risks of deterring authors. Submission fees may be most suitable for high rejection rate journals if advantages outweigh disadvantages.

1 of 18
Download to read offline
Submission Fees in Open Access Journals Mark Ware Open-Access-Tage, G旦ttingen 5 October 2010
Project objectives & sponsors Objective: to examine how submission fees might contribute to a move towards Open Access Project sponsor: Knowledge Exchange (JISC, SURF, DFG, DEFF) 2
Methodology literature survey initial interviews (mostly journal editors and publishers) develop/re鍖ne possible models semi-structured interviews (publishers, librarians, research funders, research institutions, and individual researchers) some 40 interviews in total 3
Submission fee models Model Description submission fee + larger article Wellcome Trust processing charge as WT, plus payments to referees Leslie (meeting standards), refunds for accepted articles submission fee payment in kind by bepress refereeing Submission fee i.e. no article processing charge only 4
Some journals using submission fees Journal Publisher OA? SubFee IF Am Physiol Soc journals x14 Am Physiol Society N 50 varies Cancer Research AACR N 75 7.5 FASEB Journal FASEB N 50 6.8 Hereditas Wiley Y 150 1.2 Ideas in Ecology & Evolution Queens U Y 400 - J Bone Mineral Research Wiley N 50 6.4 J Clinical Investigation ASCI N 70 16.6 J Immunology Am Assoc Immunol N 50 / 0 6 J Investigative Dermatology NPG N 50 5.3 American Economic Review AER N 200 / 100 2.2 BE J Theoretical Economics bepress N 75/350/175 - J Finance Wiley/AFA N 140 / 70 4 J Political Economy Chicago UP N 125 / 75 3.7 5
Advantages cited /1 deters frivolous, premature, unrealistic or "long- shot" submissions reduces total load on all reviewers and editors improves journal quality greater fairness (i.e. all authors contribute to reviewing costs) better allocation of scarce resources better scalability with growth of research output 6
Advantages cited /2 a viable economic model for OA journals with very high rejection rates article processing charge can be set independently of the rejection rate article processing charge can be set as low as possible 7
Disadvantages cited it might deter authors lack of clarity on whether funders would allow the charges to be reimbursed possible impacts on authors without research funds or from poorer economies etc. need for systems to collect and administer the payments and their reimbursement 8
A better business model? high rejection rate journals increase OA journal revenues reduce risk impact on submissions strategic 鍖t 9
Modelling: some examples different kinds of OA journal APCs submission fees rejection without peer review rejection rates deterrence effect on authors (鍖xed + variable) transaction costs 10
Example: Journal A Prestigious, high rejection-rate OA journal APC = $2500 4000 submissions, 390 accepted (~10%) With submission fees (constant revenue): APC = $1150, SF = $150 (all submissions charged) APC = $1550, SF = $150 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 11
Example: Journal B Good quality second-tier journal APC = $2000 1000 submissions, 280 accepted (28%) With submission fees APC = $1550, SF = $150 (all submissions charged) APC = $1650, SF = $150 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 12
Example: Journal C Journal closer to average for STM journals APC = $1500 300 submissions, 140 accepted (46%) With submission fees APC = $1400, SF = $100 (all submissions charged) APC = $1450, SF = $100 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 13
Support for submission fees mixed views lack of buy-in from publishers risks outweighed bene鍖ts for OA publishers alternative approaches preferred 14
Conclusions more journals already using than many publishers realise real business advantages (in principle?) provided journal rejection rate is >=70% authors may be more willing than publishers assume but advantages may not be suf鍖cient to outweigh risks? 15
Practical issues for adoption how to make palatable to authors easiest to introduce in 鍖elds where already familiar payment collection mechanisms testing author acceptance 17
Further information Report will be published by Knowledge Exchange shortly !watch for press release! Or contact me: Mark Ware www.markwareconsulting.com mark@markwareconsulting.com 18
19

More Related Content

Open access days presentation

  • 1. Submission Fees in Open Access Journals Mark Ware Open-Access-Tage, G旦ttingen 5 October 2010
  • 2. Project objectives & sponsors Objective: to examine how submission fees might contribute to a move towards Open Access Project sponsor: Knowledge Exchange (JISC, SURF, DFG, DEFF) 2
  • 3. Methodology literature survey initial interviews (mostly journal editors and publishers) develop/re鍖ne possible models semi-structured interviews (publishers, librarians, research funders, research institutions, and individual researchers) some 40 interviews in total 3
  • 4. Submission fee models Model Description submission fee + larger article Wellcome Trust processing charge as WT, plus payments to referees Leslie (meeting standards), refunds for accepted articles submission fee payment in kind by bepress refereeing Submission fee i.e. no article processing charge only 4
  • 5. Some journals using submission fees Journal Publisher OA? SubFee IF Am Physiol Soc journals x14 Am Physiol Society N 50 varies Cancer Research AACR N 75 7.5 FASEB Journal FASEB N 50 6.8 Hereditas Wiley Y 150 1.2 Ideas in Ecology & Evolution Queens U Y 400 - J Bone Mineral Research Wiley N 50 6.4 J Clinical Investigation ASCI N 70 16.6 J Immunology Am Assoc Immunol N 50 / 0 6 J Investigative Dermatology NPG N 50 5.3 American Economic Review AER N 200 / 100 2.2 BE J Theoretical Economics bepress N 75/350/175 - J Finance Wiley/AFA N 140 / 70 4 J Political Economy Chicago UP N 125 / 75 3.7 5
  • 6. Advantages cited /1 deters frivolous, premature, unrealistic or "long- shot" submissions reduces total load on all reviewers and editors improves journal quality greater fairness (i.e. all authors contribute to reviewing costs) better allocation of scarce resources better scalability with growth of research output 6
  • 7. Advantages cited /2 a viable economic model for OA journals with very high rejection rates article processing charge can be set independently of the rejection rate article processing charge can be set as low as possible 7
  • 8. Disadvantages cited it might deter authors lack of clarity on whether funders would allow the charges to be reimbursed possible impacts on authors without research funds or from poorer economies etc. need for systems to collect and administer the payments and their reimbursement 8
  • 9. A better business model? high rejection rate journals increase OA journal revenues reduce risk impact on submissions strategic 鍖t 9
  • 10. Modelling: some examples different kinds of OA journal APCs submission fees rejection without peer review rejection rates deterrence effect on authors (鍖xed + variable) transaction costs 10
  • 11. Example: Journal A Prestigious, high rejection-rate OA journal APC = $2500 4000 submissions, 390 accepted (~10%) With submission fees (constant revenue): APC = $1150, SF = $150 (all submissions charged) APC = $1550, SF = $150 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 11
  • 12. Example: Journal B Good quality second-tier journal APC = $2000 1000 submissions, 280 accepted (28%) With submission fees APC = $1550, SF = $150 (all submissions charged) APC = $1650, SF = $150 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 12
  • 13. Example: Journal C Journal closer to average for STM journals APC = $1500 300 submissions, 140 accepted (46%) With submission fees APC = $1400, SF = $100 (all submissions charged) APC = $1450, SF = $100 (peer-reviewed submissions charged) 13
  • 14. Support for submission fees mixed views lack of buy-in from publishers risks outweighed bene鍖ts for OA publishers alternative approaches preferred 14
  • 15. Conclusions more journals already using than many publishers realise real business advantages (in principle?) provided journal rejection rate is >=70% authors may be more willing than publishers assume but advantages may not be suf鍖cient to outweigh risks? 15
  • 16. Practical issues for adoption how to make palatable to authors easiest to introduce in 鍖elds where already familiar payment collection mechanisms testing author acceptance 17
  • 17. Further information Report will be published by Knowledge Exchange shortly !watch for press release! Or contact me: Mark Ware www.markwareconsulting.com mark@markwareconsulting.com 18
  • 18. 19