pricing, business models and open access matthew cockerill publisher, biomed central academic...

Pricing, business models and open access

Matthew CockerillPublisher, BioMed Central

Academic Publishing in Europe, 24th Jan 2007

Time to panic?

?Status quovs

Apocalypse

Industries that have been changed by the internet

Retail Travel Music Video Science publishing

Wave ofprogress

The effect of the internet on the science publishing industry

Changes have been gradual and not in the least apocalyptic

There is a lot of inertia But change is happening - as it

should be!

The power of the customer

Open access mandates from research bodies such as CERN and Wellcome have forced the hand of the most reluctant publishers

Even the most OA-sceptical publishers (e.g. Elsevier, the Royal Society, the American Chemical Society) now offer an open access option, where funders demand it

The era of the ‘diktat’ from publishers is over

Open access publication charges BioMed Central comparison

page now lists 21 publishers’ open access options

Charges vary by an order of magnitude ($500 -$5000)

BioMed Central’s charges (~$1500) are towards the lower end

For many traditional publishers, OA charges are icing on the subscription cake, so pricing is somewhat arbitrary

http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors /apccomparison

Interesting revenue data reported by OUP in June 2006

Nucleic Acids ResearchPublished by OUP, fully open access since 2005

2003: Income per article published = $4224 2005: Income per article published = $3622 Open access publication charge = $1900

[Has been increased to $2370 for 2007] A gap between revenue from OA fees and previous per

article revenue Continuing print subscriptions bridge some of shortfall

See: http://www.oxfordjournals.org/news/oa_workshop.html

What does a transition to OA mean for traditional publishers? Most libraries will not continue to pay

subscriptions for journals that are fully OA So either:

– Per article publication charges will need to climbOR

– Total revenue per article will fall, resulting in a need to lower costs and/or profit expectations

Downward pressure on OA publication charges is to be expected

The most efficient publishers will be rewarded

Central misunderstanding about open access publishing

Open access = ‘Author pays’?

In biomedicine, investigator-led grant funding is widespread

Payment of publication costs from author’s grants has helped kick-start open access in biomedicine

But this is not the only model, nor necessarily the best, long-term

Other models for OA

Central institutional funds for OA publication costs (e.g. Wellcome)

Institutionally-supported journals, e.g.• Beilstein Journal of Organic Chemistry• Chinese Medicine• Chiropractic & Osteopathy• Filaria Journal• International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity• Journal of Brachial Plexus and Peripheral Nerve Injury

• Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research

Consortium-supported journals (CERN)

CERN - Large Hadron Collider

CERN and OA to Particle Physics

Working party set in November 2006 to turn CERN’s open access commitment into reality

Membership of particle physics laboratory consortium should be finalized by February

Intention is that all particle physics research from CERN and other consortium members will be published OA from January 2008[In time for the publication of the first experimental results from the Large Hadron Collider]

Another model for OA

Academics running their own journals

Open source software such as Open Journal Systems (OJS) makes it easier than ever for academics to run journals themselves

Low direct costs, but significant drain on time and institutional resources

How should publishers respond?

Publishers need to persuade academics that it remains beneficial to outsource the task of journal publishing

The publishing industry cannot simply assume that it has an ongoing right to control the publication of academic research

Don’t look backwards

It is not enough for publishers to focus on seeking to maintain the same revenue per article as under subscription model

As new models/alternatives appear, publishers, to survive, need to:– Ensure that their pricing relates to the value

that they add – Look for new ways to add value

Looking forwards…

Technology lowers barriers to creating and sharing content

YouTube of science publishing?

The value of case reports

Historically, discouraged by most journals Not proper research, low citations, would

damage impact factor BUT Case reports have the potential to be valuable

contributions to medical knowledge, if they can be effectively compiled and mined

Case reports (contd.)

Use Web 2.0 technology to collect structured case report information

Process automatically where possible Offer user friendly database interface Cost of publication must be low -

practitioners generally lack research funds

JMCR publication charge: £250

In conclusion…

Seeking to preserve the publishing industry economics of yesterday is not an end in itself

Change need not be a bad thing New business opportunities arise

as old ones disappear