MAB Retreat

Electronic Publishing Models & The Public GoodMay 29, 2003 SSP MeetingBaltimore, MDBernard Rous

OutlineIntroductionFramework for discussionFull DisclosureThree Publishing ModelsThe Cost of Research A Word about EP CostsConclusions and Questions

IntroductionCopyright and Controlled AccessUnder attackFrom LibrariansFrom Academic ResearchersPublisher response

Framework for DiscussionThe Marxist DialecticClass Consciousness and Economic Interests EVERYONE has them even Open Access advocatesYou are how you eat

Full DisclosureAdding Fuel to the FirePhenomenological method and the Eidetic ReductionBias RevealedObjective Discussion

Three Electronic Publishing ModelsNot-for-profit Scholarly SocietyPragmatism charging is a necessary evilCommercial PublishingCapitalism profit is good; higher profit is betterOpen AccessIdealism serving the public interest

Not-for-Profit Society ModelStrengthsA real community of shared discipline-specific interests (unlike the academy)Commonality of Mission ValuesChecks and BalancesWeaknessesThe same=>Cost-plus pricing; narrow margins; agility; growth potentialLack of focus

Checks and balances: The mission is defined by the volunteer governance; the business implementation by staff. As someone who earns his living as paid staff for a not-for-profit scientific and educational society, I want our margins of surplus to be maximized. A wealthy organization can afford higher salaries and give greater benefits. The plain truth my financial security and economic self-interest is served by maximizing profit I.e., surplus. It is also true and equally important that larger margins will make my work life more interesting both because there are more innovative projects that can be tried and more stimulating colleagues can be hired.

Commercial ModelStrengthsHierarchical decision making=>faster on feetProfit orientation=>exploit market opportunities; Value-based pricingWeaknessesAlienationbusiness model independent of customer values (or so they say)Quality of Product a Secondary Derivativedepends on well-functioning market; thrives with competition and direct demand

Explain Quality: Profit defines the mission and is the responsibility of capitalist company to realize it. Quality of product and service is the way to compete with others to achieve profit. Satisfaction of user is way to increase demand. Markets can be imperfect when competition dies out due to too much success. Demand as it relates to quality can be distorted when the consumer is not the buyer.

Open Access ModelStrengthsConsistent with expressed values of academy: institutional support>engages enthusiasm of consumer; resonates with the public goodEliminates/reduces overhead=>access control; authentication; billing & collecting; DRMFosters use and re-use WeaknessesLargely unprovenAcademic-centric: integration with other researchTime sink; sustainability questionGovernment control; political agendas; growth potential

Pot shot at Who Defines the Public Good: Need to identify self-serving nature of the identification of ones own cause with the Public Good. Diatribe on economic benefits of scholarly publication: recognition, grants, tenure, salary, course relief; assistants; pet projects; interesting work.

Cost of research per article publishedGinsparg$50K minimumPat Brown$150KDavid Lippman$250K-$300K

Publication cost per article: $1500$5,000?1% of cost of research 3%?

These figures are from proponents of Open Access. They were presented by Paul Ginsparg last year at the NAS ejournal symposium and those of Pat Brown and David Lippman for Public Library of Science and NIH respectively at last weeks NAS Symposium on Electronic STM Journal Publishing and its Implications.

Looking at them, they raise a question a couple of questions:

1. Are the publishing costs small enough in relation to research costs to be embedded in them?2. They seem small in comparison to the research costs. Does this mean that publishers are actually doing a very good job? What ought the ratio to be? How can one determine it?3. The costs in research dollars per article published actually look very high. Does this mean that researchers are doing a bad job? That their expenses are exorbitant in relation to their productivity? That they are in fact ripping off the tax payer? How does one go about estimating such a thing?

I dont have any answer to this, but the questions really point up two important considerations. First, when publishers are taken to task for exorbitant prices, it is fair to ask similar critical questions of the research community. In point of fact, the determination of exorbitant is made in relation to increases which someone has determined should be calibrated to certain indexes and to library budgets. Administrations have made determinations on library budgets based on their own business models and some decision that library budgets should be held to a percentage of the overall budget. Why? Maybe the research literature products that are now delivered are that much more valuable than they were 10 years ago.

But a second and more interesting consequence of these questions about value is that a publisher has a decent way to answer them: the value is determined by the market, by the buyer. But how are research dollars evaluated? There is no market at play. Instead, there is the notion of the public good and a political process that determines how much to spend and in what areas. It is OUR money they are spending. Yet once such a public good is institutionalized, it is very hard to change and very hard to evaluate. That it suits the vested interests of the research establishment goes without saying. That it is in fact serving the public good is another question altogether. I guess it depends on how much you trust the government. I think it is at least important to state that the Cold War for sure and now probably anti-terrorism, are political agendas which influence how and where research dollars are spent. In this light I think it is legitimate to raise at least question whether STM research is identical to the public good and therefore whether publishing research is ipso facto also a public good that should be funded by similar means.

A Word on EP CostsWide spectrumUnknownsBi-modal worldPolitical process of chargingComparisons of print and EP hard: product not the same. No steady state

Conclusions

Costly value-added not wanted: obsolete industryHow much value-added is worth doing?Push-back from marketLibraries on pricing and useAcademics on copyright and access Peaceful co-existenceCompetitive developments

I touched on Electronic Publishing costs in order to open up one possible way that Open Access might succeed: perhaps the costly processes we publishers undertake add value that is not highly prized. Perhaps lower cost electronic publishing systems will suffice and be preferred if the trade-off is open access. If ep costs are low enough, they might more readily be embedded within existing budget processes.

Open questionsOpen access sustainable?Open access symbiotic or parasitic?How to measure success in serving the public good?Tension - creative synthesis or destructive antithesis?

Checks and balances: The mission is defined by the volunteer governance; the business implementation by staff. As someone who earns his living as paid staff for a not-for-profit scientific and educational society, I want our margins of surplus to be maximized. A wealthy organization can afford higher salaries and give greater benefits. The plain truth my financial security and economic self-interest is served by maximizing profit I.e., surplus. It is also true and equally important that larger margins will make my work life more interesting both because there are more innovative projects that can be tried and more stimulating colleagues can be hired.Explain Quality: Profit defines the mission and is the responsibility of capitalist company to realize it. Quality of product and service is the way to compete with others to achieve profit. Satisfaction of user is way to increase demand. Markets can be imperfect when competition dies out due to too much success. Demand as it relates to quality can be distorted when the consumer is not the buyer.Pot shot at Who Defines the Public Good: Need to identify self-serving nature of the identification of ones own cause with the Public Good. Diatribe on economic benefits of scholarly publication: recognition, grants, tenure, salary, course relief; assistants; pet projects; interesting work.These figures are from proponents of Open Access. They were presented by Paul Ginsparg last year at the NAS ejournal symposium and those of Pat Brown and David Lippman for Public Library of Science and NIH respectively at last weeks NAS Symposium on Electronic STM Journal Publishing and its Implications.

Looking at them, they raise a question a couple of questions:

1. Are the publishing costs small enough in relation to research costs to be embedded in them?2. They seem small in comparison to the research costs. Does this mean that publishers are actually doing a very good job? What ought the ratio to be? How can one determine it?3. The costs in research dollars per article published actually look very high. Does this mean that researchers are doing a bad job? That their expenses are exorbitant in relation to their productivity? That they are in fact ripping off the tax payer? How does one go about estimating such a thing?

I dont have any answer to this, but the questions really point up two important considerations. First, when publishers are taken to task for exorbitant prices, it is fair to ask similar critical questions of the research community. In point of fact, the determination of exorbitant is made in relation to increases which someone has determined should be calibrated to certain indexes and to library budgets. Administrations have made determinations on library budgets based on their own business models and some decision that library budgets should be held to a percentage of the overall budget. Why? Maybe the research literature products that are now delivered are that much more valuable than they were 10 years ago.

But a second and more interesting consequence of these questions about value is that a publisher has a decent way to answer them: the value is determined by the market, by the buyer. But how are research dollars evaluated? There is no market at play. Instead, there is the notion of the public good and a political process that determines how much to spend and in what areas. It is OUR money they are spending. Yet once such a public good is institutionalized, it is very hard to change and very hard to evaluate. That it suits the vested interests of the research establishment goes without saying. That it is in fact serving the public good is another question altogether. I guess it depends on how much you trust the government. I think it is at least important to state that the Cold War for sure and now probably anti-terrorism, are political agendas which influence how and where research dollars are spent. In this light I think it is legitimate to raise at least question whether STM research is identical to the public good and therefore whether publishing research is ipso facto also a public good that should be funded by similar means. I touched on Electronic Publishing costs in order to open up one possible way that Open Access might succeed: perhaps the costly processes we publishers undertake add value that is not highly prized. Perhaps lower cost electronic publishing systems will suffice and be preferred if the trade-off is open access. If ep costs are low enough, they might more readily be embedded within existing budget processes.