California Institute of Technology
Home  |   Contact Us  |   About Us

Scholarly Communication


What the experts and stakeholders say:

What the publishers say:

  • AAAS (Science)
    • The costs of publication are met from several sources: membership … institutional subscriptions or site licenses for the online version at 1,000 institutions; and advertising. Thus our model should probably be called "open submission.”
    • The higher the rejection rate, the larger becomes the expense budget.
    • Individuals are canceling subscriptions due to institutional site license access. Since print advertising is a major part of Science revenue stream, loss of circulation creates a revenue problem.
  • American Geophysical Union
  • American Physical Society
    • It is the peer review and the composition that cost the most.
    • APS could work with circa $1500 per article fee as long as the payment came for every article.
    • There are savings when internal processes are made more electronic
    • Using the arXiv for submissions generates savings
  • American Society of Cell Biology
    • The ASCB believes strongly that barries to scientific communication slows scientific progress.
    • ASCB position on public access to scientific literature supports open access. (2007)
  • Brussels Declaration
  • Elsevier
    • Open Access Green Route includes fees to the on-line reader. (2004)
    • The funding of library budgets has not kept pace with R&D expenditures and the resulting volume of articles.
    • Even in the Open Access model publishing will be commoditized and there will be pressure to compete by offering lower author charges.
  • Hindawi Publishing Corporation launches Open Access Institutional Membership. (2006)
    • The Hindawi Publishing Corporation is pleased to announce the launch of its Open Access Institutional Membership program. The Institutional Membership was created in order to give libraries and other institutional sponsors the opportunity to encourage Open Access publishing within their organization.
  • The Newsletter for Journal Publishers. Nov. 3, 2005
    • Excerpt from Gene Kean, 18th Annual Study of Journal Prices for Scientific and Medical Society Journals:
    • In general, library budgets have not kept pace with serials price increases. In addition, because of a weak dollar in some years, U.S. research libraries have had to bear price increases of 20% or more for some overseas journals.
  • The Public Library of Science has announced the "late 2005" launch of PLoS Clinical Trials.
  • Public Library of Science - additional information
    • Publishers can and should be paid a fair price by the sponsors of the research - a "midwife's fee" - for their role in orchestrating peer-review, editing and disseminating the results. But they should not be given the baby - … - to own and control.
    • The governmental and private institutions that finance the research already pay most of the costs of scientific publishing indirectly - through the funds they provide to research libraries. These same institutions would accomplish far more with the same money by phasing out subscription payments to restricted-access journals and, instead, paying for open-access publication of the research they support.
    • Since producing a journal requires money for editing, graphics, production and distribution, the Public Library of Science (PloS) plan is that the authors of published manuscripts will pay a fee, initially set at $1,500 per paper.
  • Springer
    • In the new business model of Springer an author pays $ 3000 to have his/her article published.
    • Open Choice (Author pays option) is a pragmatic solution that will reveal just how deep the demand for Open Access publishing is.
    • Annual price increases have become almost academic, since nearly all customers negotiate individual contracts
    • Haank remains skeptical about people's ability to undertake the massive redirection of money flows—both within each single institution, and within every country—that open access requires. Haank advocates providing greater access using the existing money flows.
  • US scholarly publishers oppose Bill on mandatory public access. May 11, 2006
    • Professional and scholarly publishers have expressed strong opposition to S.2695,  the “Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006” introduced by Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-CT).
    • Click here to read the original press release http://www.publishers.org/press/index.cfm

- Blume, Martin. “A Conversation.” Current Science. Vol. 87(5): 560-565. Sept. 10, 2004
- Hunter, Karen. “Open Access: yes, no, maybe”. Nature. Web focus. 19 March 2004.
- Kean, Gene. "18th Annual Study of Journal Prices for Scientific & Medical Society Journals." JP: Newsletter for Journal Publishers. No. 3 (2005).
- Kennedy, Donald. “Science editor-in-chief warns of PLoS growing pains.” Nature. Web focus. 19 March 2004.
- Pickering, Bobby. Springer blasts open choice critics. Information World Review. Oct. 12, 2004.
- Poynder, Richard. Interview: Put up or shut up. Information Today. v. 21(8) Sept. 2004.
- Schwartz, Mark. Should publicly funded research be free and available to the public?. Eurekalert. March 2, 2004.
- Suber, Peter. AGU launches hybrid OA program for most of its journals. Open Access News. June 16, 2007.


For additional information please contact Kimberly Douglas, University Librarian, at kdouglas AT library.caltech.edu.

Last updated: October 12, 2011 13:12