New Business Models
The traditional business models used by publishers are unlikely to be sustainable in the changing environment for scholarly communication favouring open access. The Scholarly Communication Group and the Journals Working Group commission research to understand what new business models will be acceptable to both publishers and libraries, and to allow publishers to experiment with these new models.
There is increasing concern that the traditional business models used by publishers are unsustainable. The ‘subscriber pays’ model for journals allows publishers to cover their costs and make a modest surplus or profit. However, the growth in research funding results in more articles published and higher journals prices. Academic library budgets cannot pay for the increasing costs as volume of the research literature grows. Effectively their budgets buy less. At the same time the open access movement has established the principle that the outputs of funded research should be freely and readily available to the community.
This dichotomy has stimulated interest in new business models for publishing, models that will be sustainable for both publishers and libraries. The Scholarly Communication Group and the Journals Working Group have commissioned studies to explore new models. Recent studies are summarised briefly below.
Learned Society Open Access Business Models
Open access business models have been widely promoted within the scholarly publishing community as the basis for resolving the funding problems of communicating research. However, precise data on revenues and costs of publishing peer-reviewed journals in print and online have been difficult to access. The focus of this study is an in-depth exploration of nine learned society journals’ business and pricing models in the context of their societies and the open access business model.
The study considers whether and how open access can be adapted by the representative sample of scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishers who agreed to participate in the study. It identifies the key requirements for a society journal business model to be financially sustainable. These include covering costs and returning a modest surplus.
There are concerns that the open access model as currently construed is unlikely to meet all of these needs. The report includes conclusions and recommendations arising from the results of the study, tools for publishers considering a transition to open access, and brief case studies of the publishers who participated in the study.
JISC Open Access Funding Initiative
Many publishers agree in principle with open access journals, but business models for open access journals are different from those of traditional journals. Publishers therefore need to understand the implications for their journals, and indeed their business, before converting their journals to open access.
JISC’s Open Access Funding Initiative has enabled publishers to implement new open access journal models and find out how they work in practice. The initiative provided £384,500 to six publishers over three years (2004-2006). This ‘seed funding’ allowed them to waive author charges for open access journals, so the publisher and their authors could assess the benefits without financial risk.
The Journals Working Group commissioned an independent study to evaluate the initiative. The report, Evaluation of the JISC’s Open Access Funding Initiative, considered it to be very successful, allowing both publishers and authors to move forward in their understanding of open access publishing. It allowed publishers to experiment with open access and explore new economic models without financial risk in the short term. The publishers seemed committed to continuing their open access projects when the funding ended, though there is some uncertainty about whether authors will be prepared to find the funds for open access publication charges.
The study surveyed 124 authors who benefited from the funding, i.e. their publication charges were waived. Overall their experiences were positive, and 78% said they were likely to choose to publish in an open access form again.
Business Models for Journal Content
JISC makes a wide range of e-journal content available to academic libraries in the UK under a variety of commercial arrangements. Libraries have expressed concern that some of these models are not meeting their needs and those of their user communities. The Journals Working Group commissioned this study to understand the concerns of libraries in more detail, to analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the current business models, and to assess the potential for new business models.
During the study, a wide range of libraries and publishers were interviewed to understand their objectives, requirements, and views on business models. Several models were then developed and assessed in terms of advantages, disadvantages, and risks. The models included national licences, pay-per-view converting to subscription, pay-per-view pre-purchase, collections of core and peripheral titles, open access author pays, and open access hybrid.
The report concludes that no single model is ‘best’ or ‘ideal’, and no model can compensate for reduced library budgets while maintaining revenues to publishers. Debates about the cost of journals and library funding have continued for years, and there still seems to be a strong difference of views. Overall, publishers and most libraries seemed happy with current subscription and big deal models, though libraries expressed concern about inflexibility in terms of title selection, cancellation, and access rights. The study recommends that JISC consider trialling some of the new models proposed.