Myth 9 | A high quality journal such as Nature would need to charge
authors £10,000-£30,000 in order to move to an Open Access
model
"Under an author pays model, we estimate the actual cost per paper published would be in the region of £10-£30,000 depending on the impact of lost advertising."
Letter to Inquiry, January 13th 2004, Richard Charkin (CEO, Macmillan)
"There are many answers because there are many journals for many disciplines, and the impact will be different depending upon which discipline or which journal you are talking about. In our letter to you, speaking on behalf of Nature Publishing Group, in the case of Nature itself, the British international journal, in order to replace our revenues you would have to charge the author somewhere between £10,000 and £30,000 because the costs of editorial design and support are so high. The reason for the big disparity is how much advertising"
Oral evidence to Inquiry, March 1st 2004, Richard Charkin (CEO, Macmillan)
Response
Although
subsequent media reports failed to mention it, the quotes above make clear that
this figure is only claimed to apply to Nature - an extremely special
case among the tens of thousands of life science journals. Elsevier's evidence
confirmed that, even with the inefficiencies of publishers' current systems,
the cost per article for a typical journal is far lower:
" The cost to publish an article [...] ranges from between $3,000 to $10,000 per article [...] I would agree with those numbers."
Oral evidence to Inquiry, March 1st 2004, Crispin Davis (CEO, Reed Elsevier)
" For Blackwell? [...] it worked out at £1,250 per article. That was the cost of the total system."
Oral evidence to Inquiry, March 1st 2004, Robert Campbell (President, Blackwell Publishing)
But even for Nature, the figure of £10,000-£30,000 is wildly off the mark.
The calculation used by Macmillan was as follows:
"Very crudely, £30 million of sales: we get income of £30 million and we publish 1,000 papers a year. That is your [£30,000]."
Oral evidence to Inquiry, March 1st 2004, Richard Charkin (CEO, Macmillan)
£30,000 is indeed a lot of money. But Nature clearly spends nothing like that
on each research article that it publishes.
There are several major problems with the calculation that was used:
- A significant fraction of Nature's £30m revenue is spent to
commission and produce the non-research-article content of the
journal (e.g. News & Views articles, book reviews,
commentaries, editorials etc.) This non-research content would
continue to drive healthy print and online subscription revenue,
even if the research articles were made freely accessible online.
Since the non-research content (the front-matter) is far more
widely read than the research articles themselves, it is far from
clear whether making the research articles Open Access would
have any negative impact on subscription revenue. In fact, the
opposite can be argued.
- For the same reason, there is no reason to believe that Nature's
impressive advertising revenue would suffer dramatically as a
result of Open Access, yet they are assumed to fall to zero in
Nature's calculation.
- Part of the argument used to justify the high cost per published
article is that Nature rejects more than 90% of papers submitted,
and so has to review more than 10 papers for every one it
publishes, and has to bear the entire cost of this.
"[Nature] publishes fewer than 10% of the research articles submitted. Economics dictates that high quality journals like Nature have a high unit cost per paper published, because for every article published more than ten have been reviewed and de-selected."
Letter to Inquiry, January 13th 2004, Richard Charkin (CEO, Macmillan)
This would indeed be expensive, and it is true that the repeated
peer-reviewing of rejected papers as they trickle down the
journal pyramid is one of the worst inefficiencies of the present
system. In fact, however, Nature is not that profligate and had
already taken steps to address this issue:
"If a paper cannot be accepted by Nature, the authors are welcome to resubmit to Nature Cell Biology. Nature will then release referees' comments to the editors of Nature Cell Biology with the permission of the authors, allowing a rapid editorial decision. In cases where the work was felt to be of high quality, papers can sometimes be accepted without further review"
Thus, if a paper is scientifically sound, but is not exceptional or
fashionable enough to appear in Nature, it may well be
submitted and accepted into one of the next tier of journals in
the Nature stable (Nature Cell Biology, Nature Medicine, Nature
Genetics etc.) without requiring significant additional editorial
work or costs. This is a very sensible system, and is one that is
already in use at BioMed Central. If an article is rejected for
publication in BioMed Central's top-tier journal, Journal of
Biology, but is judged by the reviewers and editors to be
scientifically sound, the authors may be offered publication in
one of our more specialist journals. Public Library of Science
plans to operate a similar mechanism as it launches new
journals.
This trickle-down approach benefits authors by avoiding the
delays caused by repeated rounds of peer-review, and benefits
science as a whole by reducing the cost of the publication
process while maintaining quality.
Taken together, the above factors make it clear that the actual figure that
would be necessary as an author charge for Nature would most likely be
vastly lower than the suggested figure of £10,000-£30,000. It is even
possible that Nature could operate at a profit while offering Open Access to
research content and making no author charge whatsoever.
|