Oxford University Press punishes publication in Nucleic Acids Research

According to the new pricing scheme (blogged at 9.7.), Institutions who publishes more than one paper a year in NAR will suffer from higher overall fees (combined publication and subscription charges), see table below (red numbers). To make publications freely available to the public will therefore be punished as the author’s institution has to pay up to 5 times more than last year’s online subscription. In contrast, an reading-only habit without any publication of research results „in return“ will be rewarded. So for example, the University of Münster (1 publ. in NAR p.a.) will make savings, but strong research institutions such as the DKFZ Heidelberg (4,8 publ. p.a.), the University of Oxford (5,5 publ. p.a.) or Yale University (10 publ. p.a.) will experience much higher annual costs associated with combined NAR publication and subscription fees.
Nachtrag: Das House of Commons Science & Technology Committee sieht diese Problematik auch (§ 177), wenn auch aus einem anderern Gedanken heraus (der OUP wahrscheinlich dazu bewogen hat, sein Preismodell genau so und nicht anders aufzuziehen): Open Access bedeutet, dass z.B. Pharmafirmen kein Geld mehr in Zeitschriften stecken müssten. Dieses Geld würde dem Publikationswesen entzogen und müßte von einer anderen – der akademischen – Seite direkt (Abokosten) oder indirekt (Publikationgebühren) aufgebracht werden: [We have] to avoid a disproportionate increase in the amount of money that Government invests directly or indirectly in the publishing process.

Sum of NAR publication and subscription fees ($)
Institutional Access Options
Number of Publications in NAR p.a.
0
1
(Münster)
2
3
4
5
(Oxford)
10
(Yale)
"Open Access"
0
1500
3000
4500
6000
7500
15000
Institutional membership
2459
2959
3459
3959
4459
4959
7459
Print subscription
2855
3355
3855
4355
4855
5355
7855

less expensive than subscription 2003
more expensive than subscription 2003

ISI kein Geburtshelfer für neue Zeitschriften – im Gegenteil

Matthew J. Cockerill, Delayed impact: ISI’s citation tracking choices are keeping scientists in the dark, BMC Bioinformatics 5, 93 (2004), macht darauf aufmerksam, dass das ISI-System der Impact Faktoren es neuen Zeitschriften sehr schwer macht, den Durchbruch zu schaffen. Er weist auf die Konkurrenz hin, die hier mit Scopus (gebloggt am 5.7.) und CiteBase bereits aufmarschiert ist. Aus den Open Access News

New issue of Interlending & Document Supply

Aus den Open Access News: The new issue of Interlending & Document Supply (vol. 32, no. 2) is now online. Here are the OA-related articles. Only the the TOC and some abstracts are accessible to non-subscribers.

  • ÞórnÝ Hlynsdóttir and Þóra Gylfadóttir, Remote document supply in Iceland before and after nationwide access to 8000 e-journals: the story so far
  • Lynn Wiley, License to Deny? Publisher restrictions on document delivery from e-licensed journals
  • David Ball, What’s the „big deal“, and why is it a bad deal for universities?
  • Parliamentary inquiry into Open Access [no abstract]
  • Peter Suber’s predictions for 2004 [no abstract]

Springer’s Open Choice ist kein Open Access

Springer’s neues Geschäftsmodell Open Choice (gebloggt am 5.7.04) wird von Jan Velterop von BMC in Newswire der Open Access Gedanke abgesprochen: „Springer’s program breaks from that [Open Access] definition is some key ways. [It also forbids] copying, reproducing, distributing, or posting of the publisher’s version of the article on a third party server. That makes guaranteeing open access in perpetuity virtually impossible.“ Aus Open Access News