It’s official: the most celebrated open access eprint repository — the arXiv —  is moving to a “subscription-like” business model beginning this year.

The news, released Thursday by the Cornell University Library, is accompanied by an FAQ and detailed arXiv Business Model White Paper.

Like most academic libraries, the Cornell University Library, which has hosted the arXiv since 2001, has experienced significant economic hardships and is looking for ways to defray costs.  Their short-term (three-year) plan is to ask libraries of the heaviest user institutions (based on their number of downloads) to make small annual contributions to keep the resource going.  This does not really fit the definition of “subscription,” since access will not be turned off for any institution that does not pay the fee, nor will it prevent individuals from uploading documents.  It’s more in line with a National Public Radio model of fund-raising, although the white paper is careful not to use words like “charity” or “donation” and there is no offer of a coffee mug or tote.

The arXiv’s long-term business plan is not yet set, although hints of what it may look like include support from academic libraries and research centers, societies, endowments, and government grants from agencies such as the National Science Foundation.  The arXiv received an $883,000 stimulus grant last year for updates and improvements to the service.

Undoubtedly, the announcement of a new funding model for the arXiv comes at a poor time, when many academic libraries are facing severe budget cuts.  Still, 22 of the top 25 heaviest users have already pledged support, according to their news release.

While this sounds as if fund-raising will be a simple matter, the total contributions from these 22 institutions amount to only $88,000 if they are paying the recommended $4,000/year pledge.  The arXiv currently costs $400,000/year, with costs projected to reach $500,000 in 2012.

Getting donation pledges from institutions further down the user list may be much more difficult, considering that their users will not lose any services from the arXiv.  In addition, the business plan makes no mention of the additional time and resources needed to manage annual billing and payments for a subscription-like service.

The business plan both explains and promotes the arXiv and its effect on scholarly communication:

arXiv has been one of the most important disruptive innovations in scholarly communications since the advent of the Internet. Its preemptive dissemination model represented the first significant means to provide expedited access to scientific research well ahead of formal publication. It remains an exemplar in the open-access debate.

And yet, the model of charging libraries seems quite traditional for supporting an open access service when alternative models charge authors or their funding agencies for support.  Many readers may also take issue with whether the arXiv has truly disrupted scientific publishing (as Michael Clarke wrote recently), or whether eprints and journal articles share a “productive co-existence.”

When the arXiv moved from Los Alamos Labs to Cornell University, its placement in the library was seen as a commitment to the long-term stability of the arXiv.  In 2008, before the financial crash, Anne Kenney, Cornell’s University Librarian, remarked on the success of the service:

[the arXiv] represents an incredible model for scholarly communication that transcends borders, publishers and time. We bring operational stability and a demonstrated track record of stewardship to this invaluable open-access resource.

Reacting to the recent change in the arXiv’s business model, Ann Okerson, Associate University Librarian at Yale University, feels that the library’s move reflects ordinary growing pains for any successful service:

One day we realize that the puppy we brought home from the pound turned into a cross between a Great Dane and a Mastiff. How to feed and care for it? We’re still missing reliable models for that.

Fred Dylla, Executive Director and CEO of the American Institute of Physics, has optimism for the future of the arXiv, although the change does send a clear message to all stakeholders that high-value scholarly publishing cannot be done on the cheap:

This development sends an important message to the all sides of the scholarly publications community: a scholarly publications service requires a sustainable commitment of income and professional resources.  I’m sure that Cornell will be up to the challenge.

Jerry Cowhig, Managing Director of IOP Publishing in the UK, praised the library and its service with an offer of support:

Cornell Library deserves appreciation for its continued custodianship of the arXiv, an indispensable resource in physics. We hope the library will find partners to support them in moving it forward. We at IOP would be pleased to collaborate in any way that is helpful.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]
Phil Davis

Phil Davis

Phil Davis is a publishing consultant specializing in the statistical analysis of citation, readership, publication and survey data. He has a Ph.D. in science communication from Cornell University (2010), extensive experience as a science librarian (1995-2006) and was trained as a life scientist.


16 Thoughts on "ArXiv Grows Up, Adopts Subscription-like Model"

I would not have used the metaphor “grows up” to describe the developments at arXiv, but Phil’s post has the basic points right. The NPR model, which Phil cites, may have some wrinkles, though. During the Christmas NPR fund drive, I learned that only 10% of NPR listeners are members of their local stations. That’s a 90% free-rider rate. Also, the TOTAL donated in all fundraising drives for NPR across the U.S. comes to $42 million, which hardly seems like it is worth the air time. How much money is raised per minute, I wonder? I hope arXiv endures, but the business plan should include a small posting fee (say, $50/paper) and allocate the cost to the actual beneficiaries, the authors.

I agree with Joe–charging authors a submission fee seems to be the only model that will scale ($50/paper may or may not be the right price point). Another option is to tax the heaviest individual users of the system, e.g., give all users N free accesses per month and charge for additional accesses. I imagine that under that model most users would never have to pay, so maybe it wouldn’t work too well, either.

Kevin Cohn
Director of Product Management

Ref Kevin and Joe’s comments…

Didn’t Biomed Central come up with a pricing system based on level of participation in the deposition of papers into BioMed Central per institution? And didn’t that model suffer some unpleasant birthing pains? I seem to recall that when presented with the costs based on the level of deposit, a number of libraries got a bit upset. I don’t know the details of the institutional participation now, can anyone shed any light on this? Is it still the same model?

If ArXiv is so vital to the marketplace for the science deposited therein, surely it should respond rationally to a pay to deposit model… presumably at the institutional level (for it is written that Authors will not pay for anything). It could be run as a cooperative enterprise to ensure that the costs are divided up equitably. Of course that would mean that those outside the cooperative would have very limited or perhaps zero access to the content.

I am curious. How do you think the Cornell University Library should pay for arXiv? Everybody has an opinion about the best business plan, and I am sure we will see many pop up in the comments here. What is yours?

What would I do? First, I would develop a long-term vision for the arXiv and then work on a short-term model for how to achieve this long-term vision.

While I was not privy to internal discussion, it appears that only a short-term financial gap solution is offered and that the long-term vision is still lacking (or in the process of being developed).

The problem with asking for money first is that money is always tied with influence. The libraries and other contributors that subscribe/pledge annual funds will demand support, accountability and a seat around the table in determining the future of the arXiv.

Thus, it is important that the long-term goals of the arXiv are established first before money starts trading hands.

As to what business model I would propose? Personally, I value the independence of the arXiv and therefore would like to see it supported internally (i.e. within Cornell). That could mean reaching out from the library to the provost, dean of research, physics department, etc. Applying for grants to make substantial improvements and upgrades makes a lot of sense and does not require the ballooning of oversight and advisory boards.

I’m not quite sure what the phrase “subscription-like” is meant to convey.It’s important to emphasize that it’s not a subscription model being proposed. At this point, institutional users who choose not to contribute will not be cut off from access to arXiv. Anne Kenney, university librarian at Cornell, has emphasized that this new iteration is a temporary solution while they figure out what might work in the long haul. It’s also a test of how well a voluntary-contribution model works.

Would “tip-jar” be a better way to describe it? That’s how most websites think of voluntary contributions from readers, though in this case, it’s a mighty hefty tip.

I hope that this message comes out in my post (paragraph 3). The phrase “subscription-like” comes directly from their Business Model White Paper.

Perhaps there are political or legal implications with using terms like “non-profit foundation,” “charity,” or “tax deductible donation.”

Unless I’m mistaken, some states forbid their offices (which includes state libraries) from making charitable donations. Hence, language like “subscription-like” may be used to avoid these issues.

Perhaps folks at the Cornell Library would comment?

For many libraries this is going to have to be treated as a subscription. If we wind up supporting it, it will be at the expense of other journal subscriptions. We’ve never had this amount of money to infuse into anything beyond maintaining what we have currently.

We will simply have to set up some kind of representation for the governance of the arXiv. Our university also was shut out of all decisions made to date – if we’re going to start contributing voluntarily, we want representation at the table. Does anyone know what the plans are?


Good point about its being Cornell’s phrase. I will ask them!



Voluntary institutional sub-sidy/cription as a sustainable model, through all economic times, tough and tender??

Here’s an alternative model whose sustainablity is less founded on blind faith:

Institutions have many self-interested reasons for wanting to host, archive, manage, monitor, measure and showcase their own research article outputs. The annual scale of their own local article output is also manageable and sustainable at the institutional level, within its existing infrastructure:

Carr, L. The Value that Repositories Add
Swan, A. The Business of Digital Repositories
Harnad, S. Institutional vs. Central Repositories

Hence what will happen is that instead of trying to sustain a central repository like Arxiv — most of whose costliness derives from the fact that it is a single direct locus of deposit and archiving from all institutions, worldwide — direct deposit and hosting will instead be offloaded onto the distributed network of institutional repositories, with Arxiv becoming merely another central harvester, providing global search services (sustainable if it provides functionality that can compete with other OAI services or Google Scholar).

But voluntary sub-sidy/cription will no doubt sustain things for a while. (Things do seem to catch on rather slowly in this domain…)

Stevan Harnad

Would it be an idea to combine efforts with the SCOAP3 project? They are collecting money for making the most important high energy physics journals Open Access. The amount needed for ArXiv is only a small portion of the SCOAP3 fund; I think 5% or so. The combination would offer the best of both worlds: a pre-print service and an OA publishing service.

The long-term stability and sustainability of consortial subs/idy-cription schemes like SCOAP3 or COPE for gold OA journals is already in itself untested, uncertain (and, I think, beset by a deep intrinsic incoherence). To compound all that with central subs/idy-cription for central-deposit green OA repositories when distributed institutional-deposit green OA repositories are on the rise does not seem like the most far-seeing strategy. Nor do these two kinds of subs/idy-cription schemes sound more stable or sustainable when yoked together than they do separately (despite the lure of global pre-emptive “consortial” bargaining and prepayment deals born of library desperation with the high price of journals — and really amounting to just the old SPARC consortial bargaining strategy, before SPARC had cottoned onto OA: ).

Comments are closed.