[LINK] Rather Fascinating study on Open Access

Anthony Hornby anthony.w.hornby at gmail.com
Thu Jul 9 21:44:46 AEST 2009

John keeps a list of publications here http://www.netspeed.com.au/jhoughton/

Regards Anthony

2009/7/9 Tom Koltai <tomk at unwired.com.au>:
> In June 2009 a study was completed that had been commissioned by
> Knowledge Exchange and written by Professor John Houghton, Victoria
> University, Australia. This report on the study was titled: "Open Access
> - What are the economic benefits?
> A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark." This
> report was based on the findings of studies in which John Houghton had
> modelled the costs and benefits of Open Access in three countries. These
> studies had been undertaken in the UK by JISC, in the Netherlands by
> SURF and in Denmark by DEFF.
> In the three national studies the costs and benefits of scholarly
> communication were compared based on three different publication models.
> The modelling revealed that the greatest advantage would be offered by
> the Open Access model, which means that the research institution or the
> party financing the research pays for publication and the article is
> then freely accessible.
> Adopting this model could lead to annual savings of around EUR 70
> million in Denmark,
> EUR 133 million in The Netherlands and EUR 480 in the UK. The report
> concludes that the advantages would not just be in the long term; in the
> transitional phase too, more open access to research results would have
> positive effects. In this case the benefits would also outweigh the
> costs.
> The work is an expansion ion Houghtons earlier report. (details in
> Intro).
> This would imply a saving in Australia of around 160 million dollars
> were a similar system implemented here.
> Tom
> ---------------------------------------
> Open Access - What are the economic benefits?
> A comparison of the United Kingdom, Netherlands and Denmark
> Prepared and co-ordinated by John Houghton Centre for Strategic Economic
> Studies Victoria University, Melbourne
> http://www.knowledge-exchange.info/Admin/Public/DWSDownload.aspx?File=%2
> fFiles%2fFiler%2fdownloads%2fOA_What_are_the_economic_benefits_-_a_compa
> rison_of_UK-NL-DK__FINAL_logos.pdf
> Main Points
> Building on previous work, this summary looks at the costs and potential
> benefits of alternative
> open access models for scholarly publishing in the UK, Netherlands and
> Denmark - giving a
> sense of the implications for one of the larger, a mid-sized and a
> smaller European country.
> Analysis focuses on comparing three alternative models for scholarly
> publishing, namely:
> subscription publishing, open access publishing and self-archiving. To
> ensure that meaningful
> comparisons could be made, the self-archiving models explored include
> the peer review,
> certification and quality control functions necessary for formal
> scholarly publishing.
> We estimate that in an open access world:
> . Open access or 'author-pays' publishing for journal articles (i.e.
> 'Gold OA') might
> bring net system savings of around EUR 70 million per annum nationally
> in Denmark,
> EUR 133 million in the Netherlands and EUR 480 million in the UK (at
> 2007 prices
> and levels of publishing activity);
> . Open access self-archiving without subscription cancellations (i.e.
> 'Green OA') might
> save around EUR 30 million per annum nationally for Denmark in a
> worldwide 'Green
> OA' system, EUR 50 million in the Netherlands and EUR 125 million in the
> UK; and
> . The open access self-archiving with overlay services model explored is
> necessarily
> more speculative, but a repositories and overlay services model may well
> produce
> similar cost savings to open access publishing.
> The cost-benefits of the open access or 'author-pays' publishing model
> are very similar across
> the three countries. In terms of estimated cost-benefits over a
> transitional period of 20 years,
> open access publishing all articles produced in universities in 2007
> would have produced
> benefits of around 2 to 3 times the costs in all cases, but showed
> benefits of 5 to 6 times costs in
> the simulated alternative 'steady state' model for unilateral national
> open access, and benefits of
> around 7 times the costs in an open access world.
> The most obvious difference between the national results relates to the
> self-archiving and
> repositories models, which while promising substantial net benefits in
> all countries do not look
> quite as good in the Netherlands as they do in the UK, and nothing like
> as good as they do in
> Denmark. This is due to the implied number of repositories, each with
> operational overheads.
> Notwithstanding this difference, the modelling suggests that more open
> access alternatives are
> likely to be more cost-effective mechanisms for scholarly publishing in
> a wide range of
> countries (large and small), with 'Gold OA' open access or author-pays
> publishing, the
> deconstructed or overlay journals model of self-archiving with overlay
> production and review
> services, and 'Green OA' self-archiving in parallel with subscription
> publishing progressively
> more cost-effective.
> _______________________________________
> No viruses found in this outgoing message
> Scanned by iolo AntiVirus
> http://www.iolo.com
> _______________________________________________
> Link mailing list
> Link at mailman.anu.edu.au
> http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link

More information about the Link mailing list