High Cost of Publishing in the Humanities and Social Sciences

It costs more to publish an article in a humanities or social sciences (HSS) journal than to publish one in a science, technical, or medical (STM) journal – over three times as much, according to a report soon to be released by the National Humanities Alliance in the United States.

The full report is to be released as soon as possible, according to NHA committee chairman William E. Davis. In the meantime, a summary by Jennifer Howard in July 20th's Chronicle of Higher Education [subscription required] has been generating much discussion and comment.

Given the high reported cost - an average $9,994 per article in HSS to an average $2,670 in STM - most conclude that the author-pays open access model that serves STM publications will not be feasible for HSS researchers, for whom less grant money is available in the first place to cover such costs. Nevertheless, the NHA chairman says that he and other HSS publishers will figure out some alternative open access model that will suit HSS. “We will,” Mr Davis said, “because we have to.”

Also mentioned in the report is the finding that acceptance rates are significantly lower for articles submitted to HSS journals - 11% for HSS, to STM's 42%. HSS researchers are thus further disadvantaged in an environment where numbers of publications are used as a measure of success.

It is on this last finding that Kathleen Fitzpatrick focuses on the MediaCommons blog. Fitzpatrick suggests that, as the pre-publication filtering needs of HSS publications are so strong and therefore so expensive, and as we are no longer constrained by the bounds of what we can print and ship, it might be better to eliminate all but the most functional pre-publication print review. A journal's editorial staff could look over each article to ensure that it is basically appropriate, then post it online and allow the readers to do the peer review. The Houghton report in the UK, summarised here, analysed and costed this model and concluded that "Open access self-archiving with overlay services would result in a saving of over 50% on subscription publishing."

An interesting alternative response to the report comes from Cathy Davidson, co-founder of the Humanities, Arts, Science & Technology Advanced Collaboratory. Davidson suggests in this blog post that "Perhaps universities simply need to consider the cost of running humanities and social science publishing as one of the intrinsic costs of these fields, offset by the enormous number of students we teach ... and the lower equipment and technology costs".

A move to open access could bring significant system savings

A move to open access publishing could potentially bring system savings of around £215 million per annum in the UK, according to a report on the costs and benefits of alternative scholarly publishing models. An online model provided by the report authors runs as an executable application for those wishing to calculate national or institutional costs and benefits elsewhere.

John Houghton of the Centre for Strategic Economic Studies, Victoria University is the lead author of the January '09 JISC commissioned report Economic implications of alternative scholarly publishing models: Exploring the costs and benefits.

Three publishing models are analysed and costed per article (e-only):
1) subscription or toll-access publishing (reader pays) : £2337
2) open access publishing (author pays to publish in an open access journal) : £1524
3) self-archiving with overlay services (author self-archives in an institutional or subject repository, with overlay services provided by the publisher to include peer review management, editing, production and proofing) : £1125

Open access self-archiving with overlay services would result in a saving of over 50% on subscription publishing. Significant additional savings could be made if acquisition cost savings were to be included.

Potential savings of 30% per title for open access monograph publishing are calculated, but a recommendation is made for more research as that area develops.

The report further recommends that:

• Appropriate metrics should be used when evaluating research.
  
• Institutions and funding bodies should ensure the availability of funding for author or producer side fees. (The analysis suggests that “under the rather conservative modelling assumptions, funding agencies or institutions might be able to divert up to 3.5% of research funding to author-side payments before net benefits were exhausted.”)
  
• The development of institutional and subject repositories should be encouraged and supported.

The report, including an Addendum, the online model, and commentary, can be found at http://www.cfses.com/EI-ASPM/. Under ‘Commentary’ see especially the JISC response to the joint comments issued by the Publishers Association, the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers.