FEATURE ARTICLE
Free Internet Access to Traditional Journals
Can scientists find ways to share published research without high cost? The experiences of one society suggest it can be done cheaply, even profitably
Thomas Walker
Free Access at a Profit
The Florida Entomological Society posts PDF files for all its articles at no extra cost to authors by taking the $3 per page cost of the service from its $45-per-page publishing charge. We describe this as furnishing our authors "electronic reprints," because, when printed, a PDF file is the equivalent of a paper reprint. But unlike paper reprints, electronic reprints are never used up and are available all the time nearly everywhere. Obviously, authors, if given the opportunity, should be willing to pay for electronic reprints.
In fact the economics of electronic reprints are so favorable that societies should be able to finance free access to all their articles from the extra revenues generated by selling "e-reprints" to those authors who want their articles immediately posted in this way. Figure 4 illustrates how this would work. In the example shown, a society sells authors 100 traditional paper reprints for an average price of $17 per page, of which $12 pays for printing, packaging and mailing the reprints to those who order them. If this society were to sell electronic reprints—the option of having PDF files posted immediately so that anyone could download and print them—for $17 per page, it should cost no more than $3 per page to produce and post them, and the society would make $14 per page in reprint profits instead of $5. The extra profit ($9 per page) should more than pay for delayed posting of those articles for which authors fail to buy e-reprints. The details of this scheme will vary from society to society. For example, the average per-page price for 100 paper reprints varies at least from $15 to $43. Nonetheless, the difference in the costs of producing paper and electronic reprints will always be great, and that difference is what is used to open access to all articles after a delay of at least one year. (Without such a delay, authors would have no incentive to buy e-reprints.)
Societies depend on library subscriptions to help pay their publishing costs—not so heavily as commercial publishers, but enough to make them cautious about providing free Web access to their articles. The experience of FES, which has made all articles in its journal immediately and freely Web accessible since late 1994, is instructive. From 1994 through 1998, institutional subscriptions to Florida Entomologist declined 3 percent. In an attempt to separate the effects of the serials crisis from that of free Web access, I compiled data for four society-published, Web-inaccessible journals. These four showed an average decline in institutional subscriptions of 18 percent during the same period (Figure 6). Surprisingly, institutional subscriptions to Florida Entomologist for 1998 are up 5 percent from 1997. Should FES's experience not be repeated and library subscriptions falter, societies can recover lost income by raising the price of e-reprints, which would also reduce the percent of authors buying them and hence reduce the likelihood that libraries would cancel.
Are there concerns other than loss of library subscriptions that may make societies reluctant to provide their members and all others free Web access to their journals? I've thought of three. The first is loss of royalty income. Journals try to collect royalties for photocopies of articles that exceed those permitted under "fair use." Making articles Web accessible for free will reduce and eventually eliminate this income. However, royalty income is minuscule relative to total publishing revenues, and the extra profits from selling e-reprints should easily cover the losses. One national society grosses about 50 cents in royalties per published page, with a net of 30 cents (after the costs of copyright registration are deducted).
A more interesting concern is that making all articles accessible without cost in PDF format will detract from efforts to put traditional journals on the Web in attractive, interactive HTML format, such as is being done for a number of society-published journals. Those societies that already put enhanced HTML versions of their articles on the Web also post PDF files. By allowing authors to pay to have the PDF versions of their articles available for free, these societies will generate additional revenue for their e-publishing efforts. And additional revenue is needed, because enhanced HTML is costly. Exact figures are hard to obtain, but start-up costs are evidently $20,000 or greater, and maintenance costs are at least several thousand per month. The only specific figures I have seen are in a recent estimate for putting a society-published medical journal on line: $45,000 for one-time fees and $48,000 per year in recurring fees (for 2,600 pages annually, or $18.46 per page). Among the components of this estimate was $1.75 per page for the production of PDF files. If the society bought only the PDF files and turned them over to a library for permanent posting, annual costs would be $4,550 plus whatever had to be paid to make the links to the on-line tables of contents. Those societies not yet putting enhanced HTML versions on the Web might ask their members what sort of Web access they want and how it should be financed.
A final concern is that free access now will financially ruin societies in the all-electronic future, when issues and reprints are no longer printed and mailed. If societies acknowledge that their mission is to serve members, they should realize that restricting access to refereed research results, when free access has finally become affordable, is counter to that mission. They should avoid the appearance of trying unnecessarily to maintain the commodity status of journal articles and instead experiment with ways to reduce publishing costs by better use of digital technology in refereeing and editing. Societies can take comfort in the fact that they have ample time to prepare for change, because the end of central printing is not imminent. The printed page (which you now hold in your hand, enjoying its aesthetic quality, crisp readability and portability) has served the research community long and well, and it will not be abandoned until researchers, librarians, and publishers agree that there is a better way—and what that is.
» Post Comment