Summary from the Chronicle explains
The first large-scale comparison of open-access journals with traditional, subscription-based journals was published on Tuesday, and it reveals an industry in flux.
The study was published in book form as The Facts About Open Access by the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers. The association financed the research with three other organizations, all of which are affiliated with traditional journals.
The comparison was based on a survey of nearly 500 journals, and the results were first reported in March (The Chronicle, March 25). "It's too early to tell whether full open access is a viable business model," said Cara S. Kaufman, who conducted the survey and is a principal at the Kaufman-Wills Group, publishing consultants in Baltimore.
She found that more subscription-access journals break even or produce surpluses than do open-access journals. She also learned that more than half of all journals, whether traditional or openly accessible, were considering changing their business models within three years. (That rule had one exception: Only one-third of journals put out by members of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers were planning a change.)
And in what may be the report's most surprising finding, Ms. Kaufman discovered that a larger fraction of traditional journals than open-access journals charge authors fees to publish. Because the most visible publishers in the open-access movement, the Public Library of Science and BioMed Central, charge authors fees, the movement itself has often been associated with that business model.
Some critics of the movement have charged that, under open access, peer review will suffer. Ms. Kaufman found that more open-access journals than traditional journals forsake external peer review, instead having staff members provide the reviews. Such a review "may be less rigorous," Ms. Kaufman said.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment