Houghton

Document Sample
Houghton Powered By Docstoc
					Implications of alternative
open access publishing
models

John Houghton
Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Victoria University, Australia
John.Houghton@pobox.com
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.
                                                   Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
The scholarly communication process
   http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/SCLCM-V7/




                                    Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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.


                                                    Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Dimensions of impact: Access and Permission




                                 Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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.).
                                                      Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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)




                                  Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Library costs by mode and model
(Handling costs in UK SCONUL Libraries)




                                          Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Estimated UK system costs per article
(Electronic-only format in GBP, 2007)




                                        Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Open Access in UK higher education
(Cost of alternative models in GBP millions, 2007)




                                         Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Open Access in UK higher education
(Cost implications in GBP millions, 2007)




                                            Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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)




                                            Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
Access for UK small and medium-
sized firms

  Publishing Research Consortium survey of access in the UK




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




                                                                                                        Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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.
                                                   Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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.
                                                                                                            Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
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.
                                                      Centre for Strategic Economic Studies
    EI-ASPM project website

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




                        Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:3
posted:12/4/2011
language:English
pages:23