Comparison and evaluation of some economic models of digital‐only journals

Abstract

Economic aspects of digital journal production and delivery were explored using Ithink Analyst, a modelling software package. Three models were developed and simulations were used to monitor the effect of variations in the values of key model elements. The results suggest that scholarly journals can be produced and distributed for a modest fee as long as there are at least 500 subscribers. Alternative models such as author-funded production are also viable. While a model that shares costs between authors and subscribers is viable, administration of two sets of fees would increase costs.

The peer‐review process

“…Halliday and Oppenheim (2000) thought that IoPP's figure was too low, but in my opinion they overestimate editorial staff costs, by underestimating the number of small journals that one staff editor can simultaneously handle. Wood (1998), reporting on the ESPERE project, believed that an all-electronic system for the administration process would save money (as well as time) and bring the figure below the estimates of Donovan (1998), but she produced no numbers to back up this claim.…”

Some economic aspects of the scholarly journal system

“…There has been some confusion in reporting these costs; some writers apparently do not distinguish between donated and paid editor contributions, as well as reviewing and other editor duties. Rowland summarizes past aspects of editorial reviewing activities and concludes the cost is about $200 per submitted paper and $400 per published paper (Donovan, 1998; Halliday, & Oppenheim, 2000; Okerson & McDonnell, 1995; Page, Campbell, & Meadows, 1997; Rowland, 1996, Tenopir & King, 2000). In a survey of 2,165 reviewers, Ware (2009) observed that the respondents had taken about 24 days (elapsed time) to complete their most recent review.…”

Pricing strategies and models for the provision of digitized texts in higher education

“…However, it was suggested that the pricing schemes in the HE market would be best served by a mechanism based on a 'per-page' measure, thus 'allowing for some flexibility in perceptions of value on the part of the rights owner' [12]. In relation to the textbook substitution model recommended by the Bide et al report, Halliday and Oppenheim [15] argued that it is 'prohibitively expensive. We do not believe that this model of charging is viable'.…”

“…Halliday and Oppenheim [15] evaluated six economic models of the production and delivery of specific digital library services that derived from the general models above. Four of the models simulated the production of a single journal under varying conditions, and the other two models evaluated were a resource discovery network and a National Electronic Reserve Service (NERS).…”