Implications of alternative open access publishing models John Houghton Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Victoria University, Australia

Implications of alternative publishing models (Australia, UK, Netherlands and Denmark)  DEST funded study of “Research Communication Costs, Emerging Opportunities and Benefits”.  Take-off point was the need to look at costs and benefits to compare cost-effectiveness and inform policy.  UK JISC funded study of the “Economic Implications of Alternative Scholarly Publishing Models”, in collaboration with Loughborough University.  SURF and DEFF funded studies exploring the costs and benefits of alternative publishing models in the Netherlands and Denmark. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Alternative publishing models (All include quality control & peer review)  The studies focus on three alternative publishing models:  Subscription publishing – using individual reader subscriptions or the, so called, Big Deal for research libraries.  Open access publishing – where access is free to readers, and the authors, their employing or funding organisations pay for publication.  Self-archiving – where authors deposit their work in online repositories, making it freely available to anyone with internet access.  We explore two self-archiving models:  ‘Green OA’ self-archiving in parallel with subscription publishing.  The ‘overlay journals’ model of self-archiving with overlay production and peer review services. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Approach and activity model (Phase I)  Two approaches in the literature: (i) a focus on the publishing process, and (ii) systems perspectives putting publishing in a wider context.  Studies that focus on publishing activities alone tend to overlook areas in which costs are shifted around the system, and risk confusing cost shifting with cost reduction and not taking account of the full system costs.  We adopted a systems perspective and our costings include activities related to funding research, performing research, publishing, and research library and dissemination activities.  We developed an activity model based on the IDEF0 standard, which is often used for business process re-engineering. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

The scholarly communication process Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Cost model and matrix approach (Phase I)  Scholarly communication is multi-dimensional, so we adopted a ‘matrix approach’ to costing:  Activities (e.g. peer review),  Actors (e.g. universities),  Objects (e.g. journal articles), and  Functions (e.g. quality control and certification).  With the aim of being able to break down and re- assemble the scholarly communication value chain along any of these dimensions. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Dimensions of impact: Access and Permission Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Activities and cost data items (EI-ASPM Model) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies  We created a series of spreadsheets containing each of the elements identified in the process model, then sought to populate the model with data.  The research funding activities worksheet has more than 350 items;  The perform research worksheet has around 565 items;  The publisher activities worksheet has around 670 items; and  The dissemination activities worksheet, mainly research library activities, has around 730 items.  So there are more than 2,300 activity and data items that are costed, and another 550 basic data items (e.g. the number of researchers and publications, R&D spending, etc.).

Quantifying costs and benefits (Phase II)  We adopted a staged approach that tackles it from the bottom-up (case studies) and the top-down (a simple econometric model):  We explore the costs of the process activities and system costs, to see cost differences and direct savings.  We present cases and scenarios exploring the cost savings resulting from the alternative publishing models throughout the system, to see the indirect cost differences and savings.  Then we model the impact of changes in accessibility and efficiency on returns to R&D. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Publisher costs by mode and model (Per article cost in GBP, 2007) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Library costs by mode and model (Handling costs in UK SCONUL Libraries) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Estimated UK system costs per article (Electronic-only format in GBP, 2007) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Open Access in UK higher education (Cost of alternative models in GBP millions, 2007) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Open Access in UK higher education (Cost implications in GBP millions, 2007) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

An approach to overall impacts (A modified Solow-Swan model)  There is a vast literature on returns to R&D, which while varied shows that returns to publicly funded R&D are high – typically 20% to 60% a year.  The standard approach assumes that all R&D generates useful knowledge (efficiency) and all knowledge is equally accessible (accessibility), which is unrealistic.  We introduce ‘accessibility’ and ‘efficiency’ into the standard model as negative or friction variables, and look at the impact of reducing the friction by increasing accessibility and efficiency. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Impact estimation ranges (UK HERD in GBP millions, 2006) An example of the estimation tables (UK Higher Education R&D, GBP millions) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Access for UK small and medium- sized firms Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Source: Mark Ware (2009) Access by UK small and medium-sized enterprises to professional and academic information, Bristol: Publishing Research Consortium, p13. Publishing Research Consortium survey of access in the UK

Estimating potential impacts (Publicly funded research in the UK)  With public sector R&D spending at ₤8.4 billion a year in 2006 and a 20% return to R&D, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤172 million pa.  With higher education R&D spending at ₤6.1 billion, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤124 million pa.  With RCUK competitive grants funding at ₤1.6 billion, a 5% increase in accessibility and efficiency would be worth ₤33 million pa.  These are recurring annual gains from one year’s R&D expenditure. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Comparing cost and benefits  It is difficult to compare subscription and OA publishing at the national level: subscription publishing seeks to provide UK subscribers with access to worldwide research, whereas OA publishing seeks to provide worldwide access to UK research.  We approach it from both sides and try to explore the lower and upper bounds by looking at:  Ceteris paribus scenarios – the implications of simply adding OA publishing and self-archiving to current activities, all other things remaining the same; and  Net cost scenarios – the implications of OA publishing and self-archiving as alternatives to current activities, by adding the estimated savings to estimated returns.  We present various cuts of the data to address different questions. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Transition or alternative system?  There is a lag between R&D expenditure and the realisation of returns to the research, so in the transition the impacts are lagged by 10 years and their value discounted. Hence, over a transitional period of 20 years, we are comparing 20 years of costs with 10 years of benefits.  In an alternative ‘steady-state’ system, the benefits of historical increases in returns would enter the model in year one, so it would be comparing 20 years of costs with 20 years of benefits.  It is more realistic and of more immediate concern to model the transition, but a transitional model returns significantly lower benefit/cost ratios than would an alternative ‘steady-state’ model (e.g. the ‘steady-state’ benefits might be 2 to 10 times greater). Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

Benefit/Cost comparisons for the UK (GBP millions over 20 years and benefit/cost ratio) Centre for Strategic Economic Studies Note: Compares Open Access alternatives against subscription publishing of national outputs, with costs, savings and increased returns expressed in Net Present Value over 20 years (GBP millions). Returns are to public sector and higher education R&D spending. HE = Higher Education.

Conclusions and recommendations (Create a level playing field to enable innovation)  Given the potential benefits, we suggest focusing on creating a level playing field by reducing the barriers to innovation and raising awareness of the opportunities.  There will be uncertainty in a transition, and it will be difficult to move funds around the system.  Some of the savings and benefits cannot be realised until some time after the costs have been met, so it may require budgetary allocations at the funder, institutional and, perhaps, national levels.  However, given the costs and potential savings noted these allocations need not be large, nor need they be permanent. Centre for Strategic Economic Studies

EI-ASPM project website Centre for Strategic Economic Studies