tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post114825234486544114..comments2024-03-14T21:04:42.902-07:00Comments on The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics: The financial folly of pay-per-view, for the funderHeather Morrisonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-1151970768418910012006-07-03T16:52:00.000-07:002006-07-03T16:52:00.000-07:00Ah, the 2X was to get a figure "per approved grant...Ah, the 2X was to get a figure "per approved grant" -- so yes, it doesn't apply to the OA cost, which is for all time (you're right, that's what I was missing).<BR/><BR/>So if we take your updated figure of $50K, that is $2500/paper. This seems to fall roughly in line with the cost-per-published-article figures I've seen lately (not counting journals who claim $30,000/paper!). To compare with the PPV model, we'd need to know how many times an "average" article is needed, and paid for, by reviewers.<BR/><BR/>Using your figures, $6000 for 20 papers is $300/paper -- so for these OA and PPV back-of-the-envelope "models" to come out even an average paper would have to be required by ~8 different grant review panels.<BR/><BR/>Most PIs will submit at least one grant per year over a, say, 25 year career, so a conservative guess would have each paper being needed 20 times.<BR/><BR/>But if we assume the panel can co-ordinate so as to only buy one copy of each article and make further copies for each other, the cost per application reduced by 4/5ths, so that puts us in the neighborhood of $1200 for 20 papers, or ~$60/paper. At that price, even-up is ~40 review panels. Further, if funding agencies keep digital copies of each paper they buy, they don't need to buy it more than once.<BR/><BR/>But co-ordination might not be (legally) possible.<BR/><BR/>But would a review panel really read an applicant's last 20 papers?<BR/><BR/>But the review panel usually has to review a project as well as an applicant, and the project description will have references, some of which the panel will want to read.<BR/><BR/>But indirect costs run around 50% on average for <A HREF="http://www.sciencecareers.sciencemag.org/career_development/previous_issues/articles/2170/from_science_fair_to_science_fare/" REL="nofollow">grants</A>; surely they are not so high for review panels, whose overheads do not include equipment, consumables and so on?<BR/><BR/>But, but, but. Even if we could find sources for all the assumptions, perhaps such modeling is only an opportunity for the anti-OA lobby to tie up the debate in endless nitpicking over numbers. In good faith or bad, one can always dispute an assumption, or find a contrary example, or whatever.<BR/><BR/>I'm a researcher: I want OA even if it represents no saving at all. The added convenience would be of enormous value to me, and the increased access for researchers at less well-funded institutions would have a knock-on benefit throughout the scientific community. There are other knock-on benefits, too, such as those that go with the data mining opportunities that OA provides. It's virtually impossible to put a price on those benefits, at least until we can look back over some years of near-100% OA.Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-1151524610983778422006-06-28T12:56:00.000-07:002006-06-28T12:56:00.000-07:00Thanks for your comment - here is what I think you...Thanks for your comment - here is what I think you are missing, Bill:<BR/><BR/>With open access publishing, the total cost for world-wide dissemination for all time, which you have calculated at about $60,000 - is roughly equivalent to the cost of grant reviewers' access to the previously published works of one grant applicant under a pay-per-view model.<BR/><BR/>Same cost - but the magnitude of the difference in access is hard to contemplate!<BR/><BR/>Plus, with open access, there is time savings for the grant reviewers - no need to request articles, deal with invoicing, etc.<BR/><BR/>To update the cost projections: PLoS has increased their fees, however the PLoS fees do not need to be doubled (this is a factor to account for inefficiencies of pay-per-view) - so the PLoS total would now be closer to $50,000, not $60,000, but close enough for ballpark purposes.Heather Morrisonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13726928948544472886noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14963990.post-1151523766511737882006-06-28T12:42:00.000-07:002006-06-28T12:42:00.000-07:00If they were published in PLoS, the same 20 refere...If they were published in PLoS, the same 20 references would be free to each of the 5 referees, but each one would have cost $1500 to publish -- thus the cost, though borne by previous funders, is 20x1500x2= $60,000.<BR/><BR/>Agh, I'm missing something there, but I can't put my finger on it.Bill Hookerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00366270586730870964noreply@blogger.com