Pricing, business models and open access Matthew Cockerill Publisher, BioMed Central

1. Pricing, business models and open access Matthew CockerillPublisher, BioMed Central Academic Publishing in Europe, 24th Jan 2007

2. Time to panic?

3. ? Status quovsApocalypse

4. Industries that have been changed by the internet • Retail • Travel • Music • Video • Science publishing Wave of progress

5. 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!

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. Central misunderstanding about open access publishing

11. 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

12. 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)

13. CERN - Large Hadron Collider

14. 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]

15. Another model for OA

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. Looking forwards…

20. Technology lowers barriers to creating and sharing content

21. YouTube of science publishing?

22. 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

23. 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

24. 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