Reacting to controversy over it’s use of the phrase “subscription-like” to describe the new financial business model for the arXiv eprint repository, the Cornell University Library is now using “collaborative support model” in its place.
Whatever the model is called, it will still rely on annual payments by member libraries to support the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the arXiv. What’s interesting is why “subscription” has become such a dirty and untouchable word for some.
Open Access publishers such as PLoS, BioMed Central, Hindawi, and Bentham all offer supporting institutional “memberships” — annual fees paid by the library in return for a reduction in article processing charges for their authors.
The Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity uses the term “underwriting” to describe the financial support for paying article processing fees, and many user-supported organizations, like National Public Radio rely on “donations” and “annual pledge drives.”
“Subscription” has a number of different meanings, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. One of its meanings has to do with the collaborative nature of fundraising:
The action or an act of subscribing money to a fund or for stock; the raising of a sum of money for a certain object by collecting contributions from a number of people
That sounds very much like a “collaborative support model.” Publishers, librarians, and subscription agents, however, think of “subscription” in more transactional terms, where money is traded for some kind of product or service, such as:
A contribution of money for a specified object; spec. the fixed sum promised or required as a periodical contribution by a member of a society, etc. to its funds, or for the purchase of a periodical publication
But when does a donation become a subscription? According to the OED, subscriptions are merely recurring donations:
Subscription and donation (to a charitable fund, a society, or the like) are usually contrasted, the former being a recurrent, the latter a single, contribution.
So if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, why is calling the arXiv business model a “duck” (or even “duck-like”) so problematic?
The answer may be a combination of legal and political reasons.
In many states, public and state-supported libraries are often forbidden by state law to make “donations” to any organization (political or otherwise) for which they do not receive some product or service in kind. (Libraries at private institutions have much more leeway in how they spend collection funds.) Retaining the support of public and state-supported libraries may revolve around the kind of language used in the arXiv business model.
The second reason may be political. The subscription-access model for journal publishing has been repeatedly called “unsustainable” by open access advocates. Some individuals, such as Stuart Shieber, go as far as to use the phrase “closed-access” synonymously with “subscription.” It would seem contradictory for an icon of the open access movement to adopt a model it vociferously attacks.
But there is a distinction here that should not be ignored. The arXiv business model is a support model, not an access model. The fact that the library is relying on peer libraries to make recurrent annual donations to support a highly valued information service for scientists sounds just like what subscriptions are designed to do — provide a predictable and stable source of income, without which running a dependable organization becomes extremely difficult.
As a frequent user of the arXiv, I want this service to have a successful and long-term future. If the Cornell University Library is no longer able to support this service on its own, I have no problem with them looking for new sources of financial support. Considering the alternatives — such as article-processing fees or reader-access models — a subscription model may be the best solution.
To shy away from the term “subscription” just seems a little disingenuous.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=971539ff-e096-44e0-a365-0d5dc18c7935)
Discussion
10 Thoughts on "ArXiv Ditches “Subscription-like” Model"
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck and LOOKS like a duck, chances are, folks, that you’ve got a duck. (Or in your case, Phil, a scholarly chicken…) Dancing around the semantic issue doesn’t change the fact that sustainability requires predictable financial streams.
The major difference IMO is that arXiv’s “donation” system will not price gouge in the way that most publishers’ “subscription” systems do.
SS,
When you say that most subscription publishers engage in price gouging, do you really mean to include non-profit, society, association, and university press publishers, or just a few commercial players?
It is also worth looking deeper at instances that on the surface look like price gouging. Above-inflation increases in subscription pricing are often cited as examples. However, there are multiple causes.
1) Research output has increased dramatically, and many journals have become bigger to reflect this – and consequently cost more (often the per article cost to a library is little changed).
2) Subscription attrition has meant that publishers need to increase prices in the face of fewer subscribers to cover the same costs – and generate equivalent revenue. This is, rightly, hard to stomach if that revenue simply goes to shareholders, but much less so if it is required by a non-profit organization to fund charitable and/or academic operations whose costs remain constant or increase.
And note that both forces will apply in the case of arXiv, however it is funded.
A great example of how eager some people are to start throwing around the usual rhetoric and attacks that seem to surround these issues, rather than focusing on positive solutions that can help make valuable resources like arXiv sustainable. Perhaps it’s no wonder that Cornell is so sensitive to the specific words used–one misstep and the flame wars begin.
Yes, “”Subscription” has a number of different meanings, according to the Oxford English Dictionary”, but you picked the wrong one. When people talk about subscription journals, they are not using the term with the OED’s sense 7 (“The action or an act of subscribing money to a fund or for stock; the raising of a sum of money for a certain object by collecting contributions from a number of people; a scheme for raising money in this way.”) but rather the more familiar sense 8a (“A contribution of money for a specified object; spec. the fixed sum promised or required as a periodical contribution by a member of a society, etc. to its funds, or for the purchase of a periodical publication, or in payment for a book published ‘by subscription'”). This is the familiar sense of a “subscription”, a regular payment made in return for a periodical publication — the colloquial sense of the term and the sense associated with scholarly publishing. The recent arXiv funding model is certainly not a subscription in this 8a sense so using the term is potentially misleading and inappropriate.
The more important question, of course, is how to support public goods like arXiv in a sustainable way, regardless of what we call it. Whether the NPR model has legs or not we will see.
To me “subscription” to something online means that I lease temporary access and if I have a bad year and can’t cough up the money, it’s gone. Lights out. If I’m having a tight year and don’t contribute to NPR, it’s still on the air and I can tune in. If we can find money for unsharable wares, we should definitely find funds for a public good like arXiv.
If scholars want something like arXiv, I prefer passing the hat and making it happen to turning off access to those who can’t afford it. How about a combined approach: a Wikipedia-like banner that individuals can use to make a donation and a whip-round among library directors? Call it a membership, as in an NPR membership, if that’s what it takes to satisfy bean-counters.
The real issue remains: how to recoup the beans that publishers, commercial and scholarly society alike, shell out to create the content and make it available? No publisher can continue to publish at a financial loss and few publishers of which I am aware are willing to simply break even. Call the financial reimbursement what you like, the choice of payors is limited. As Ms. O’Neill points out, whatever the payment plan is, it must be predictable to be sustainable. Publishing on this scale is a business, and the first rule of business is to stay in business.
