implications of alternative open access publishing models john houghton centre for strategic...

Implications of alternative open access publishing models

John Houghton

Centre for Strategic Economic StudiesVictoria University, Australia [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Implications of alternative publishing models (Australia, UK, Netherlands and Denmark)

DEST funded study of “Research Communication Costs, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits”.

Take-off point was the need to look at costs and benefits to compare cost-effectiveness and inform policy.

UK JISC funded study of the “Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models”, in collaboration with Loughborough University.

SURF and DEFF funded studies exploring the costs and benefits of alternative publishing models in the Netherlands and Denmark.

Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Alternative publishing models(All include quality control & peer review)

The studies focus on three alternative publishing models: Subscription publishing – using individual reader

subscriptions or the, so called, Big Deal for research libraries. Open access publishing – where access is free to readers,

and the authors, their employing or funding organisations pay for publication.

Self-archiving – where authors deposit their work in online repositories, making it freely available to anyone with internet access.

We explore two self-archiving models: ‘Green OA’ self-archiving in parallel with subscription

publishing. The ‘overlay journals’ model of self-archiving with overlay

production and peer review services.Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Approach and activity model(Phase I)

Two approaches in the literature: (i) a focus on the publishing process, and (ii) systems perspectives putting publishing in a wider context.

Studies that focus on publishing activities alone tend to overlook areas in which costs are shifted around the system, and risk confusing cost shifting with cost reduction and not taking account of the full system costs.

We adopted a systems perspective and our costings include activities related to funding research, performing research, publishing, and research library and dissemination activities.

We developed an activity model based on the IDEF0 standard, which is often used for business process re-engineering.


The scholarly communication process http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/SCLCM-V7/


O1

I1

I2

O2

C2C1

M1

Study publication and apply knowledge

A5

Facilitate dissemination, retrieval and preservation

A4

Publish scientific / scholarly works

A3

Perform research and communicate results

A2

Fund R&D and communication

A1

Improved quality of life

New knowledge & greater awareness

Disseminated scholarly knowledge

Scholarly publications

Existing knowledge

Scientific/Scholarly problems

New knowledge

Public/Tax funding (Block & Competitive Grants)

Commercial, government or NGO funding (Contract)

Donations and Philanthropic Grants

Funding for research and communication

Access to publicationsCopyright restrictions on reusing material

InfomediariesLibraries

IP restrictions / licensing

Commercial, society or institutional publisher

Commercial publishing considerationsScientific/Scholarly curiosity

Researchers

Economic incentives

Philanthropic funders

Society needsCommercial needs

Research Councils

Norms of science/scholarshipEvaluation of the contribution

Companies, government & non-government organisationsStakeholders in R&D process

http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/SCLCM-V7/

Cost model and matrix approach(Phase I)

Scholarly communication is multi-dimensional, so

we adopted a ‘matrix approach’ to costing: Activities (e.g. peer review),

Actors (e.g. universities),

Objects (e.g. journal articles), and

Functions (e.g. quality control and certification).

With the aim of being able to break down and re-assemble the scholarly communication value chain along any of these dimensions.


Dimensions of impact: Access and Permission


ACCESS(Cost to use) (Time to use)

PERMISSION(Freedom to use)

Free

Expensive

AffordableCopyright

(Standard)

TimeConstrained

Immediate

License(Copyright &Restricted)

Delayed

Unrestricted(Creative Commons)

Toll Restricted Access & Hybrid / Delayed

Open Access Publishing & Self Archiving

Activities and cost data items(EI-ASPM Model)


We created a series of spreadsheets containing each of the elements identified in the process model, then sought to populate the model with data. The research funding activities worksheet has more than 350

items;

The perform research worksheet has around 565 items;

The publisher activities worksheet has around 670 items; and

The dissemination activities worksheet, mainly research library activities, has around 730 items.

So there are more than 2,300 activity and data items that are costed, and another 550 basic data items (e.g. the number of researchers and publications, R&D spending, etc.).

Quantifying costs and benefits(Phase II)

We adopted a staged approach that tackles it from the

bottom-up (case studies) and the top-down (a simple

econometric model):

We explore the costs of the process activities and system

costs, to see cost differences and direct savings.

We present cases and scenarios exploring the cost savings

resulting from the alternative publishing models

throughout the system, to see the indirect cost differences

and savings.

Then we model the impact of changes in accessibility and

efficiency on returns to R&D.Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Publisher costs by mode and model(Per article cost in GBP, 2007)


£0 £500 £1,000 £1,500 £2,000 £2,500 £3,000 £3,500

Subscription PRINT

Subscription DUAL-MODE

Subscription E-ONLY

Open Access PRINT

Open Access DUAL-MODE

Open Access E-ONLY

Full service overlay

Library costs by mode and model (Handling costs in UK SCONUL Libraries)


£0 £20,000,000 £40,000,000 £60,000,000 £80,000,000 £100,000,000 £120,000,000 £140,000,000 £160,000,000

Open Access e-only

Toll Access e-only

Current mix of formats

Toll Access print

Estimated UK system costs per article(Electronic-only format in GBP, 2007)


£0 £1,000 £2,000 £3,000 £4,000 £5,000 £6,000 £7,000 £8,000 £9,000

Self-archiving

OA Publishing

Subscription

Open Access in UK higher education(Cost of alternative models in GBP millions, 2007)


£230 £230

£11 £11

-£148 -£111

£2 £2 £2

£73 £73 £73

-£18-£18

-£150

-£100

-£50

£0

£50

£100

£150

£200

£250

£300

£350

"Green OA" Self-Archiving "Gold OA" or Author-PaysPublishing

Self-archiving with OverlayServices / Journals

(Net Saving £57m) (Net Saving £169m) (Net Saving £188m)

Author fees(Service Costs)

Repository Costs

Library HandlingSavings

Publisher Savings(Published Output)

Research Savings

Funder Savings

Savings

Costs

Open Access in UK higher education(Cost implications in GBP millions, 2007)


£11 £11

£113

-£148 -£111

£2£2£2

£73£73£73

£113

-£18-£18

-£150

-£100

-£50

£0

£50

£100

£150

£200

£250

"Green OA" Self-Archiving "Gold OA" or Author-PaysPublishing

Self-archiving with OverlayServices / Journals

(Net Saving £57m) (Net Saving £52m) (Net Saving £71m)

Author fees(Service Costs)

Repository Costs

Subscription CostSavings

Library HandlingSavings

Research Savings

Funder Savings

Savings

Costs

An approach to overall impacts(A modified Solow-Swan model)

There is a vast literature on returns to R&D, which

while varied shows that returns to publicly funded

R&D are high – typically 20% to 60% a year.

The standard approach assumes that all R&D

generates useful knowledge (efficiency) and all

knowledge is equally accessible (accessibility), which

is unrealistic.

We introduce ‘accessibility’ and ‘efficiency’ into the

standard model as negative or friction variables, and

look at the impact of reducing the friction by

increasing accessibility and efficiency.Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Impact estimation ranges(UK HERD in GBP millions, 2006)

An example of the estimation tables(UK Higher Education R&D, GBP millions)


Higher Education (HERD) Rate of return to R&D £6,062 million

20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Per cent change in accessibility and efficiency Recurring annual gain from increased accessibility & efficiency (million)

1% 24 37 49 61 73 2% 49 73 98 122 147 5% 124 186 249 311 373

10% 255 382 509 637 764

Access for UK small and medium-sized firms


Access to research articles SMEs Large Firms UniversityN=186 N=111 N=470

Excellent (I have access to all the articles I need) 2% 7% 17%Good (I have access to most of the articles I need) 26% 39% 55%Varied (I sometimes have difficulty getting the articles I need) 56% 37% 22%Poor (I frequently have difficulty getting articles) 14% 13% 4%Very Poor (I always have great difficulty getting articles) 3% 3% 1%

Experiencing access difficulties 73% 53% 27%Have access to all I need 2% 7% 17%

Source: Mark Ware (2009) Access by UK small and medium-sized enterprises to professional and academic information, Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium, p13.

Publishing Research Consortium survey of access in the UK

Estimating potential impacts(Publicly funded research in the UK)

With public sector R&D spending at ₤8.4 billion a year in 2006 and a 20% return to R&D, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤172 million pa.

With higher education R&D spending at ₤6.1 billion, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤124 million pa.

With RCUK competitive grants funding at ₤1.6 billion, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤33 million pa.

These are recurring annual gains from one year’s R&D expenditure.


Comparing cost and benefits

It is difficult to compare subscription and OA publishing at the national level: subscription publishing seeks to provide UK subscribers with access to worldwide research, whereas OA publishing seeks to provide worldwide access to UK research.

We approach it from both sides and try to explore the lower and upper bounds by looking at: Ceteris paribus scenarios – the implications of simply adding OA

publishing and self-archiving to current activities, all other things remaining the same; and

Net cost scenarios – the implications of OA publishing and self-archiving as alternatives to current activities, by adding the estimated savings to estimated returns.

We present various cuts of the data to address different questions. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Transition or alternative system?

There is a lag between R&D expenditure and the realisation of

returns to the research, so in the transition the impacts are

lagged by 10 years and their value discounted. Hence, over a

transitional period of 20 years, we are comparing 20 years of

costs with 10 years of benefits.

In an alternative ‘steady-state’ system, the benefits of historical

increases in returns would enter the model in year one, so it

would be comparing 20 years of costs with 20 years of benefits.

It is more realistic and of more immediate concern to model the

transition, but a transitional model returns significantly lower

benefit/cost ratios than would an alternative ‘steady-state’

model (e.g. the ‘steady-state’ benefits might be 2 to 10 times

greater). Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Benefit/Cost comparisons for the UK(GBP millions over 20 years and benefit/cost ratio)


Note: Compares Open Access alternatives against subscription publishing of national outputs, with costs, savings and increased returns expressed in Net Present Value over 20 years (GBP millions). Returns are to public sector and higher education R&D spending. HE = Higher Education.

Transitional Model Benefits Benefit

/ Cost

Costs Savings Increased

returns Ratio

Scenario (UK Unilateral OA)

OA Publishing in HE 1,787 2,990 615 2.0

OA Repositories in HE (Green OA) 189 67 615 3.6

OA Repositories in HE (Overlay Services) 1,558 2,990 615 2.3

OA Publishing Nationally 2,079 3,479 850 2.1

OA Repositories Nationally (Green OA) 237 96 850 4.0

OA Repositories Nationally (Overlay Services) 1,831 3,479 850 2.4

Scenario (Worldwide OA)

OA Publishing in HE 1,787 5,198 615 3.3

OA Repositories in HE (Green OA) 189 786 615 7.4

OA Repositories in HE (Overlay Services) 1,558 5,198 615 3.7

OA Publishing Nationally 2,079 6,054 850 3.3

OA Repositories Nationally (Green OA) 237 1,132 850 8.3

OA Repositories Nationally (Overlay Services) 1,831 6,054 850 3.8

Conclusions and recommendations(Create a level playing field to enable innovation)

Given the potential benefits, we suggest focusing on creating a level playing field by reducing the barriers to innovation and raising awareness of the opportunities.

There will be uncertainty in a transition, and it will be difficult to move funds around the system.

Some of the savings and benefits cannot be realised until some time after the costs have been met, so it may require budgetary allocations at the funder, institutional and, perhaps, national levels.

However, given the costs and potential savings noted these allocations need not be large, nor need they be permanent.


EI-ASPM project website

http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/


http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/

implications of alternative open access publishing models john houghton centre for strategic...

Documents

publishing activities

publishing process

subscription publishing

strategic economic studieswe

process model

funding research

research worksheet

selfarchiving models