Varying OA Business Models
Jul 28, 2008 Discussion
In my most recent post yesterday (Spotlight on Internet Scientific Publications), I briefly discussed the method through which ISPUB generates revenue as compared to the business models of BioMed Central or Public Library of Science. However, I believe we have only hit the tip of the iceberg with regard to this critical topic, as business model is one of the most defining features of the entire OA movement.
There are two major types of OA publishers: for-profit or not-for-profit. These can often be identified with a simple glance at the URL — for-profits usually have a “.com” domain name, while not-for-profits will end with “.org”. However, even these distinctions are not sufficient in order to fully understand the entire spectrum of OA publishers. In order to simplify the approach, I will discuss each major model individually using specific and well known examples.
The Public Library of Science operates under a not-for-profit model that draws revenue from several sources, including membership fees, publishing fees, and some advertisements. BioMed Central is quite similar, drawing resources from publishing fees and advertisements, differing primarily due to its for-profit approach. Finally, ISPUB funds its operations entirely through online advertisements, sparing both the readers and authors from fees.
Despite the obvious differences, one commonality that unites the business models of all OA publishers is their lack of any sort of cost to read the material, thus facilitating the dissemination of information and the acceleration of scientific advance. In order to display the material online, one must have a website. They need low cost web hosting. And considering today’s economy, it is hard to find cheap web hosting.
Nathan
Spotlight on Internet Scientific Publications
Jul 27, 2008 Discussion
The OA publisher Internet Scientific Publications, or ISPUB, was founded in 1996 by Olivier Wenker in order to capitalize upon the Internet’s awesome power to disseminate information. This publisher currently has over 84 journals and 5000 published papers according to its website.
ISPUB is entirely electronic, and thus can eliminate all of the costs associated with printing paper journals. It draws its revenue from relevant advertisements and corporate sponsorships, and therefore is completely free for both the author and the reader. ISPUB is also a for-profit LLC, hence the “.com” in its URL. However, it is not necessarily unique in this regard. In fact, BioMed Central is another for-profit OA publisher that comes to mind.
Despite the alternative business method, ISPUB ensures that it strictly follows the standards of peer review. Each submitted manuscript is subjected to full review by a board of editors and the editor-in-chief.
Nathan
Supporting PLoS
Jul 13, 2008 Discussion
As many of you well know, publishing and maintaining high quality scientific journals is quite expensive. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), the publisher of several OA journals, achieves this end primarily through publication fees paid by the authors or their institutions.
Unfortunately, sometimes the cost of operation exceeds the revenue, and PLoS must rely on charitable support from private individuals such as you and I. Some great ways to support PLoS include becoming a member or making a donation. Of course, these private contributions in no way affect the final decision concerning a submitted paper. However, they most certainly support the noble cause of making scientific research more available to all those interested. And for that, I encourage all of you to do your best to help support the OA movement through monetary contributions.
Nathan
Numbers Speak Louder than Words
Jul 7, 2008 Discussion
In this blog, I have discussed extensively my position that OA is superior to the closed access model in numerous ways. Most of my assertions have been derived from logical deduction, personal experience, and general trends. However, I have yet to present perhaps the strongest evidence supporting the OA model — numbers.
In a 2006 paper in PLoS Biology entitled Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles, Gunther Eysenbach investigated how publishing approach (either OA or closed access) affected the number of citations a paper received. This number of citations is a definite reflection of the dissemination of the paper through the scientific community.
Eysenbach found a definite quantitative citation advantage for OA papers over closed access papers. He wrote,
We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.
With similar evidence mounting, I feel that the scientific advantage of publishing OA will build, encouraging ever greater numbers of researchers to join the OA movement.
Nathan
Tags: advantage, data, Open Access
