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.”
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.