Comments on: ArXiv Ditches “Subscription-like” Model

By: Lenne

Lenne — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 00:02:43 +0000

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.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Wed, 03 Feb 2010 04:06:43 +0000

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.

By: Stuart Shieber

Stuart Shieber — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 17:21:21 +0000

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.

By: Richard Sever

Richard Sever — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 20:02:51 +0000

And note that both forces will apply in the case of arXiv, however it is funded.

By: Richard Sever

Richard Sever — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:28:51 +0000

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.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:16:38 +0000

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.

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 19:10:12 +0000

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?

By: SS

SS — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 18:26:05 +0000

The major difference IMO is that arXiv’s “donation” system will not price gouge in the way that most publishers’ “subscription” systems do.

By: ArXiv Says Goodbye to “Subscription-like” Model « ResourceShelf

ArXiv Says Goodbye to “Subscription-like” Model « ResourceShelf — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:26:09 +0000

[...] From a Post by Philip Davis: 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. [...]

By: Jill O'Neill

Jill O'Neill — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:09:49 +0000

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.