There’s an interesting communication on Brian Leiter’s site about the price of the notoriously expensive philosophy journal Synthese . The incapacity of academics for any kind of concerted collective action has long been demonstrated by the failure of university libraries to organized a boycott of Kluwer (publishers of Synthese and a number of other overpriced journals). [Update: See also Brian Weatherson’s site and Leiter’s comment there.] But I wanted to comment on this paragraph in order to report something I heard in Belgium last year:
With respect to the institutional pricing, things aren’t quite as simple or as bad as the raw number implies. The way things stand now, the number of paper subscriptions from institutions is slowly decreasing. However, the number of libraries buying electronic subscriptions to a bundle of journals (including Synthese) now outnumbers those subscribing to the paper copy. As libraries stop renewing their paper copy, they have tended to shift to the online version as part of an arrangement where they subscribe to all or a selection of the Kluwer journals. Consequently, the price that libraries pay for the e-version of Synthese is considerably less than /$1652. I can’t give you a precise figure because the price varies depending on the arrangement that libraries or consortia of libraries make with Kluwer. Chances are, if your library now carries the print version of Synthese, they will soon within the next few years and will adopt it in electronic form as part of an electronic bundle of journals instead.
Sounds good, doesn’t it?
A report I heard from a seminar on electronic publishing in Brussels in October 2002, suggests something more sinister is at work. Kluwer — and to some extent other major journal publishers — are now focusing on selling bundles of electronic journals to university libraries. These bundles are expensive, and are provided on an all-or-nothing basis. Now academics in fields X,Y, and Z just have to get journals P, Q, and R. The reasoning is then, the the subscriptions to the bundles provided by major publishers will constitute an ever growing proportion of overstretched library budgets.
As many academics know, there’s constant pressure to cut expenditure on journals. When the next round of cuts comes, the all-or-nothing bundle will mean that cutting, say, Kluwer journals, isn’t a realistic option. It will be those journals which are published independently, or by smaller presses that will be the focus of cutting attention. Not only does this threaten the diversity and number of journals (there may be too many, but we want to lose the right ones), it also pushes editorial teams into the arms of large bundle publishers if they want to survive.
If I’m right about this — and I’m just reporting a conversation — the advent of e-publication may not bring the diversity we all expect. People who want to sell online content (rather than just giving it away) may find themselves pressured to do so via one of the existing journals conglomerates (Kluwer, Blackwell, Sage etc) because those are the ones the libraries hand their money over to.
I’m in a self-citatory mood today, so I’ll refer readers to my previous article on micropayments. My point would be that I don’t believe that this is too much of an apocalyptic scenario (although I’d point out that bundling is almost always a pernicious commercial practice and quite often actually illegal), because I tend to think that “small press” operations of this kind ought to be free rather than sold anyway. I don’t believe that any small academic imprints make money, and I’d further hypothesise (on the same basis as my micropayments article; because there are many fewer transactions costs in a “free” model versus “nonfree”) that they would in general lose less money if they gave away the product for nothing.
We can actually put this to the test with a bit of direct data. Chris runs a world-class journal (“Imprints”), which as far as I can see from its subs page is basically a small-press affair. So the two questions I’d ask would be:
1. Am I right in assuming that Imprints runs at a small operating loss?
2. Would I be correct in assuming that that operating loss is larger than the running costs of Crooked Timber?
If the answer to the above questions is “yes”, then it would make sense (from a commercial point of view, abstracting from issues of the academic status of print versus online journals) to turn Imprints into a free, electronic-only product. Or am I missing something?
Also, am I living a sort of Marie-Antoinette aristocratic fantasy life, or is Synthese actually quite cheap at $70 for 15 issues (c. £3 a shot). That’s the same price as the Economist. Or (I think I will make this my catchphrase, I quite like it) am I missing something?
Actually, Imprints runs at a profit….
That’s only sort-of true, though, since we don’t take account of the time and commitment of the editorial committee members including the time that it takes me and another person to DTP the whole thing. But the only actual money costs are for reproduction of the insides and the setting, the printing and binding of the cover, the cost of sending boxes from Bristol to Bradford and the mailing costs. All of which costs are more than offset by subscription income, especially that from Japanese university libraries.
——
I agree, btw that $70 individuals pay for 15 issues is good value. The $1652 charged to institutions is, however, not.
No, fair enough, that was the basis I was asking on, and that’s very interesting indeed. And that’s on the basis of a £30 institutional subscription for three issues (£60 for non-Europeans), for anyone who can’t be bothered going through the link. It appears I’ve overestimated the costs of production. Would it be cheeky of me to inquire about the circulation?
Very low. Though I don’t look after that side of things - but well under 200. (Compared to 15,000 accesses of the free on-line content in August.) I would, though, vouch for the quality of the subscriber list - includes some top people.
christ this is interesting …
Well with those as the facts, I clearly need to revise my assumptions about the viability of small-press publishing. I guess that the total cost of subscribing to Imprints to a library would be significantly higher, as they would need to bind the issues if they wanted to keep them, which doesn’t come cheap, but if anything that supports your case that it becomes more difficult for a library to justify subscribing to journals outside the Kluwer package. I guess it just goes to show that bundling is always an anti-consumer practice (as mentioned above, I am not at all sure that it is not an anti-competitive practice within the meaning of the act).
I also have a bit of a problem with e-distribution, thinking about it. Given the uses made of an academic journal, e-distribution means that rather than printing a publication in bulk on a press, you print the same number of copies one at a time on a laser printer. Stripped of external costs and subsidies, that’s got to be a mad method of distribution.
Has anyone thought of a legal challenge to the bundled distribution?
(after all, bundling was one of the main issues at stake in the Microsoft antitrust case).
and now I suppose I ought to buy a subscription to Imprints myself, after all that …
dsquared, the print on demand has several advantages that IMHO make up for what would seem to be more inefficient print runs.
Those articles which more people want to read would be printed more. In a single print run, almost all articles are printed in far greater quantity than needed.
The printing materials (bulk paper, ink cartriges) are distributed in a mass, undifferentiated mode. As opposed to journals, where the right number of copies of each item have to make it to the right shelves. Most offices are already stocking paper by the case, and buying quantities of ink cartriges. Those materials can be used to print out whatever the office people need, whether it’s journal articles or comic strips.
In most cases, the journal reader will have to go to the stacks to look through back copies of journals, wasting considerable time. And articles of interest will still be copied, thereby consuming printing materials.
In addition, e-copies can be searched far more easily than hard copies.
Yeh, I hear what you’re saying. But laser printer toner is so freaking expensive compared to printers’ ink. We need to come up with some sort of cost model here …
An interesting question is whether publishers are keeping up with these changes to track the popularity of their journals. (You’d think it’s a no-brainer, but my guess is they haven’t all taken that extra step.) That is, publishers used to look at circulation of print copies to determine whether they should keep publishing a journal. Now that print copies are less and less common and subscriptions are sold in bundles, they would need to track access to individual copies and articles to determine which journals are worth publishing. (My knowledge about all this comes via my parents who’ve been involved in journal and book publishing for years.)
Re the efficiency in printing, I agree with Barry that it seems more efficient for people to simply print hard copies of articles they want to read since those people usually end up getting their personal copies via some method anyway and the real change is not having hard copies of unread pieces around.
D^2: Printers ink is cheap, but the set-up costs for real printing are high. So you need a highish print-run in order to break even. But once you’ve done so the low marginal cost of further copies means you’re making lots of money thereafter.
Use a copying process (as Imprints does for the text but not the covers) and you can break even whilst producing far fewer copies. The catch being that the marginal cost always stays rather high.
“Yeh, I hear what you’re saying. But laser printer toner is so freaking expensive compared to printers’ ink. We need to come up with some sort of cost model here …”
Posted by dsquared · September 30, 2003 04:19 PM
Aside from the huge fixed costs of print runs, I imagine that the more popular journal articles are extensively xeroxed, which means that the large per-copy printing costs are still there. I know that I went through a lot of copies when I was a grad student. And that was paying for them myself.
Guys: I’ll try and crunch some numbers in my copious free time and maybe put up an article.
Ezster: But I don’t think that popularity matters all that much for an academic journal publisher; since their market is libraries, what they need is a journal that’s absolutely essential to one person rather than one that’s quite interesting to twenty.
Oh, but as library budgets are shrinking, libraries are cutting back on all sorts of journals. While the subscriptions weren’t bundled, they could get rid of one individually. And there are lots of very topic specific journals that many many many libs don’t get. There are tons of academic libraries and they do make selections as to what they purchase so you don’t get an automatic audience/market just b/c you’re publishing an academic journal.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review