# Evaluating big deal journal bundles

Abstract:  Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to

their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower

than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically

between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The

data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle

prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit

societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced

by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information

is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing,

librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and

scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that

they publish.

# Evaluating big deal journal bundles

Abstract:  Large commercial publishers sell bundled online subscriptions to

their entire list of academic journals at prices significantly lower

than the sum of their á la carte prices. Bundle prices differ drastically

between institutions, but they are not publicly posted. The

data that we have collected enable us to compare the bundle

prices charged by commercial publishers with those of nonprofit

societies and to examine the types of price discrimination practiced

by commercial and nonprofit journal publishers. This information

is of interest to economists who study monopolist pricing,

librarians interested in making efficient use of library budgets, and

scholars who are interested in the availability of the work that

they publish.

# Capitalism and Open Science ? Epeak World News

“I see a lot of confusion about the interaction between capitalism, neoliberalism and open science in public discussion right now. This article is a response to Stuart Lawson’s Against capital and a continuation of the arguments I found in Eric Kansa’s article It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough.”

# Capitalism and Open Science ? Epeak World News

“I see a lot of confusion about the interaction between capitalism, neoliberalism and open science in public discussion right now. This article is a response to Stuart Lawson’s Against capital and a continuation of the arguments I found in Eric Kansa’s article It’s the Neoliberalism, Stupid: Why instrumentalist arguments for Open Access, Open Data, and Open Science are not enough.”

# Stand der Dinge: Open Access in der Verwaltungsforschung – Open PuMa

The state of affairs: Open Access in administrative research

What options are available for openly publishing articles and books, what this costs and how authors can refinance these fees.


Chen and Olijhoek 2016 have reviewed 1000 scientific journals worldwide and developed a measure of Open Access (OA) quality. Unfortunately, no specific results for individual research areas, such as administrative sciences, can be read from this study. Among other things, despite the subject of the study, no data is provided here, where you could have understood this yourself! However, Melero et al 2017 take up the instrument developed by Chen and Olijhoek and use it to examine the Spanish journal landscape. Here are the social science journals those with the highest OA rate and the strongest author rights, probably mainly because the journals are published according to this study, especially by educational and research institutions. These usually work in a nonprofit way and do not make a profit with the release.”

# ‘Inclusive access’ takes off as model for college textbook sales

Major education publishers — including Pearson, Cengage and McGraw-Hill Education — report that the number of colleges offering “inclusive-access” programs has grown rapidly in recent years. Where previously students might have been assigned textbooks individually, now many institutions are signing up whole classes of students to automatically receive digital course materials at a discounted rate, rather than purchasing individually. The “inclusive” aspect of the model means that every student has the same materials on the first day of class, with the charge included as part of their tuition. For publishers with struggling print businesses, the inclusive-access model is a lifeline. Tim Peyton, vice president of strategic partnerships at Pearson, said it was no secret that publishers like Pearson had made textbooks too expensive and had seen sales drop as a result. “The print model is really a broken business model for us,” he said, adding, “we’re thinking about how to move away from print, and move towards digital.”

# If funders and libraries subscribed to open access: The case of eLife, PLOS, and BioOne [PeerJ Preprints]

“Following on recent initiatives in which funders and libraries directly fund open access publishing, this study works out the economics of systematically applying this approach to three biomedical and biology publishing entities by determining the publishing costs for the funders that sponsored the research, while assigning the costs for unsponsored articles to the libraries. The study draws its data from the non-profit biomedical publishers eLife and PLOS, and the nonprofit journal aggregator BioOne, with this sample representing a mix of publishing revenue models, including funder sponsorship, article processing charges (APC), and subscription fees. This funder-library open access subscription model is proposed as an alternative to both the closed-subscription model, which funders and libraries no longer favor, and the APC open access model, which has limited scalability across scholarly publishing domains. Utilizing PubMed filtering and manual-sampling strategies, as well as publicly available publisher revenue data, the study demonstrates that in 2015, 86 percent of the articles in eLife and PLOS acknowledged funder support, as did 76 percent of the articles in the largely subscription journals of BioOne. Twelve percent of the articles identified the NIH as a funder, 8 percent identifies other U.S. government agencies. Approximately half of the articles were funded by non-U.S. government agencies, including 1 percent by Wellcome Trust and 0.5 percent by Howard Hughes Medical Institute. For 17 percent of the articles, which lacked a funder, the study demonstrates how a collection of research libraries, similar to the one currently subscribing to BioOne, could cover publishing costs. The goal of the study is to inform stakeholder considerations of open access models that can work across the disciplines by (a) providing a cost breakdown for direct funder and library support for open access publishing; (b) positing the use of publishing data-management organizations (such as Crossref and ORCID) to facilitate per article open access support; and (c) proposing ways in which such a model offers a more efficient, equitable, and scalable approach to open access than the prevailing APC model, which originated with biomedical publishing.”

# A journal is a club: A new economic model for scholarly publishing | hc:16143 | Humanities CORE

“A new economic model for analysis of scholarly publishing—journal publishing in particular—is proposed that draws on club theory. The standard approach builds on market failure in the private production (by research scholars) of a public good (new scholarly knowledge). In that model publishing is communication, as the dissemination of information. But a club model views publishing differently: namely as group formation, where members form groups in order to confer externalities on each other, subject to congestion. A journal is a self-constituted group, endeavouring to create new knowledge. In this sense ‘a journal is a club’. The knowledge club model of a journal seeks to balance the positive externalities due to a shared resource (readers, citations, referees) against negative externalities due to crowding (decreased prospect of publishing in that journal). A new economic model of a journal as a ‘knowledge club’ is elaborated. We suggest some consequences for the management of journals and financial models that might be developed to support them.”

# Green Open Access: An Imperfect Standard – Politics, Distilled

“In my last post on the lack of accessibility of Gold Open Access for early career researchers (ECRs), I mentioned that in my opinion Green Open Access was a very imperfect solution – in fact, hardly a solution at all.  I expand here on why that is the case, and why a focus on green OA presents new challenges for publication practices which compound the – already many – challenges of moving towards a greater accessibility of research. Not all OA initiatives are equal.  Green Open Access, by far the commonest kind, refers to the depositing of a non-final version of the published manuscript into a research repository – generally either an institutional repository (managed by the university with which the researcher is affiliated), a subject-specific repository (such as ArXiv/SocArXiv), an academic networking website such as Academia.edu, ResearchGate, or Mendeley, or a personal website.  Various publishers have rules on what version can be posted where and when, with the most common being that accepted manuscripts (after peer-review, but before proofreading and typesetting) can be made public in repositories after an embargo period, while the “version of record” – the published version – may not be shared publicly for free.  The published article remains accessible only with paid access (with publishers either explicitly authorizing (SAGE) or tacitly tolerating the private sharing of full articles.”

# Be Bold, Go for Gold! | PLOS Biologue

“From the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) meeting in 2002 to the present day, Open Access has come a long way, and this week we celebrate the 10th annual Open Access Week! This year’s focus spearheaded by SPARC is around “Open in order to…“ with the goal of highlighting the benefits of Open Access. PLOS has published another post on our efforts for Open Access Week, and so here it seems a good time to consider the nuances of the various flavours (colours) of Open Access available to researchers today and what they are Open in order to achieve.”