THE SUBSCRIPTION OVERLAY: AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLISHING MODEL
THE SUBSCRIPTION OVERLAY: AN ALTERNATIVE PUBLISHING MODEL
It is well-known that journal prices have spiraled upwardly in price, far outpacing the ability of libraries to maintain their subscriptions. This has had significant opportunity costs in terms of ability to purchase monographs as well as print and online resources. The author of this webpage must routinely disregard advertising for many valuable resources because they are not affordable in the current situation. It is striking how the high cost of serials is cannibalizing the commercial publisher market for non-journal library resources.
Discussed here is an alternative publishing model, which will be called the "subscription overlay", designed to address the problem of affordability of ejournals. This is one species of the more generic concept, "overlay journal", that is receiving increased attention. To this author, the only known examples, thus far, of a subscription overlay are journals made available by BioMed Central (see below). (Incidentally, this was unknown to the author at the initial inception of this webpage.)
The model of overlay that is the focus of this webpage (the subscription variety) probably differs from the one that most followers of debates about publishing immediately assume when they hear the term "overlay".
In the thicket of considerations and counter-considerations that follows below (and is necessary to put flesh on the idea), it is easy to lose sight of the basic concept, which is simply this.
A subscription overlay journal is one for which users access a table of contents on an institutional or individual subscription basis. The articles so accessed are otherwise accessible for free at an institutional repository.
For people interested in the nuances of this approach, see the section about sub-species of the subscription overlay at the end of this web site. But do not tread there until reading the other material.
Alternative publishing models abound. This webpage will detail just one particular model and show its lines of continuity with the traditional model of ejournal publishing, as well as with other relatively new and evolving emphases within "alternative publishing".
This webpage is designed to summarize points made in listserv contributions as well as spur further discussion and critique. No assumption is made about the viability of this approach, but the case is made below that it has various strengths. Whether those strengths are defeasible remains to be seen.Brian Simboli
brs4@lehigh.edu; (610) 758-5003.
This webpage originally posted 2/9/05. Latest revisions 2/11/05.
CONTENTS
The "overlay" is a type of journal that has been receiving increased attention.
For present purposes, the overlay journal will be defined as one that provides a table of contents from which users can access journal articles as deposited in a publicly accessible institutional repository (IR). This definition is silent on particular issues such as these: whether one must pay for a table of contents to see the material, which is freely available on the IR; whether the material is or is not peer-reviewed; whether the finalized copy of a paper was or was not loaded in preprint form on that IR; whether or not the IR loading of articles is on a centralized IR or a distributed one.Given that definition, overlays divide into two main types. Overlay journal is the "genus"; the species are these:
a . Pure OA overlays: overlay journals both of whose table of contents and articles are freely accessible. (Support for this model can derive from a variety of funding sources.) There has been a fair amount of discussion of this type of overlay and it may well be what is typically assumed in discussions about overlays.
b. Subscription overlays: overlay journals in which an institution or individual pays for the right to view a table of contents for a journal (and, if available, the full aggregation of tables of contents for a group of journals), and where each article is otherwise accessible for free by virtue of being loaded on a freely accessible institutional repository or repositories. Access to articles therefore can be via the table of contents or via use of search engines such as OAIster or Google.
The focus of this website is mainly "b". Two notes.
First, further differentiae are possible of the "subscription overlay" concept, but not to complicate matters, they will be listed at the end of this webpage.
Second, in what follows, a particular type of "subscription overlay" is presupposed, namely, one that involves traditional processes of peer review. Reasons are given later on this webpage.
References:1. A description of the two varieties of the overlay concept, including a description specifically of the subscription overlay, is provided in my materials posted here. (Note: those materials refer to toll access overlays; a better rubric is "subscription overlays", since toll access may connote payment by individuals on an article-by-article basis, whereas the model described below would involve access to a table of contents either via institutional or individual subscriptions.)
The following journals published by BioMed Central (BMC) are subscription journals that publish research that is open access, immediately: Critical Care, Genome Biology, Arthritis Research and Therapy, Breast Cancer Research. Also, as I am understanding my correspondence with BMC, for these journals, the tables of contents for these journals link directly to the articles as they reside at BMC's own site, where those articles are also available off PubMed Central (PMC). This contrasts with another variety of the subscription overlay, where the linkages are made from the subscribed table of contents directly to a repository such as PMC (and to whatever mirror sites there might be for that repository). The distinction suggested here is mentioned below in this section, about subscription overlay sub-species.
In what follows, the discussion of subscription overlays prescinds from the particular instantiations at BMC, since I do not know the particulars of how BMC implements or funds these journals, or the full details of the business processes involved in their case.
On the other hand, here are examples of what has been described above as "pure OA overlays": [coming soon] . Such "pure OA overlays" merit more study, to identify the ways in which they are being sustained. However, they suffer from a primary defect, which is that their funding depends on factors (outside funding, sales of print subscriptions, etc.) which may or may not be sustainable.
What are the economics of subscription overlays as opposed to other types of OA initiatives, including pure OA overlays?
(i). The subscription overlay model may depend for its success on a publisher's ability to provide the following services effectively at the website for the journal(s):
(ii) Might revenues be sought in advertising? This is a possibility. Note: it is interesting in this context that BioMed Central provides advertising via Google; see the top of its webpage, with its reference to "Ads by Gooooooogle" [sic]. One suspects that the amount of revenue that can be generated via advertising at a a publisher's overlay journal site (whether of the pure OA variety or the subscription variety) would be marginal, as it does not have the breadth of audience of (say) a Yahoo. But this should be studied, if it has not been already, especially with respect to overlay journals generally.
(iii) The subscription overlay involves a business model that squares with the way libraries have done things for a very long time. That is, it squares with the way journal operations have been funded traditionally, namely, via subscriptions, the resulting revenues of which bankroll the publishing operation.By contrast, other OA models rely for their business support on: author payment for publication; money from benefactors; print subscriptions; special library funding; or government sponsorship. (Here, the reference is not to self-archiving initiatives, which rely on the largesse of publishers in allowing authors to self-archive articles otherwise available on a pay-basis through the publisher. In my view, this "green" approach is problematic, for reasons adduced elsewhere. )
Here are strengths of the subscription overlay:
(a.) Unlike these other models, its funding would not be contingent on the vagaries and vicissitudes of other revenue sources. By contrast, built into the subscription overlay model is a method for cost-recovery, namely, payment by institutions for subscription-based access to a table of contents for one journal, or a set of journals.
(b.) The model is designed to operate on a cost-recovery basis, and thus obviates commercial involvement. When material is available for free on an article by article basis, institutions will be reluctant to pay some huge amount to see a table of contents or aggregation service. There is a threshold of pricing for the subscription overlay, below which institutions will be willing to pay to see an organized table of contents (or access an aggregation service), and above which they will not. That threshold will be much lower than the current pricing of the big commercials. For the simple reason that people will not pay for really expensive "enhancements" if they can get to the material on a repository for free.(c.) In those cases where OA journals require the author to pay for publication, there is a strong potential that this variety of OA will replicate the current parlaying upward costs of the old subscription model. That is, the commercials will charge the author (or his/her institution) more and more. Who foots the bill? By contrast, the subscription overlay is designed to be low-cost and, in fact, if it is not so, it will not survive.
(d.) There has been a great deal of interest in institutional repositories. Their existence provides a basis for developing the subscription overlay model. While the author self-archiving model described as "green" is in my judgment not viable (see below) as a way to combat the problem of affordability--nor is it designed to be--it perhaps has helped spur development of institutional repositories by virtue of giving one more rationale for developing same.
(e.) Even if ultimately the pure OA variety of overlay journal fully establishes itself, the subscription overlay can play a transitional role in helping to establish a significant niche for overlay journals in general (regardless of their species). This is important because the funding models for pure OA overlay journals may be in flux for some time.
References:
Here are some key criticisms (first see email links immediately above).
(i) Why would any institution pay for access to content that is otherwise free?
Payment for content that is otherwise freely available is not unknown to librarians. Here is an example. The success of a such a product depends on whether librarians will find that it adds sufficient "value-added" aspects that it is worth it to them to pay for the service.In the case of subscription overlays, the idea is that institutions may be willing to pay for the enhanced features identified above.
(ii) Wouldn't an alternative service emerge that would reconstruct and provide access to the material otherwise available at the website?
The possibility that the table of contents can be reconstructed and therefore accessed in some way other than through the publisher's own website does not seem a defeating consideration, for these reasons:
- Perhaps portions of the metadata (exclusive of the some minimal metadata, such as the author's name) could be withheld for a period of time, a kind of embargo period, and then inserted after that embargo period. (A non-searchable publisher's "watermark" could appear in the pdf or html versions of the document whose metadata was thus embargoed, to indicate their provenance.) However, the reasons above suggest why it may not be necessary to engage in such a metadata embargo. If it were necessary to engage in such a metadata embargo, it is not clear that this would be problematic in a way that makes the model undesirable. The trade-off of embargoed metadata for a viable and sustainable business model, one that makes possible the very existence of a peer-reviewed journal, may well be acceptable.
An objection to witholding metadata, in accord with the last point, is that this goes against the whole grain of open access and OAI initiatives. Perhaps, but consider too that we are now in an environment in which many electronic journal publishers impose a several month embargo on access to newly published materials. What is more desirable: this state of affairs, or an environment in which subscription overlays are available, which makes the content immediately accessible, even if it is not as easy to get to as it would be if one has a subscription? Again, however, it is not clear that the viability of the subscription overlay model depends crucially on witholding metadata for an embargo period.
The definition given above of subscription overlays does not commit to a peer-review process of article evaluation.However, there is a very strong argument for subscription overlays to do so, or for that matter any other model that wants to challenge the hegemony of commercial publishing.
If reform of publishing is to occur, it is my view that it will need -- initially -- to emphasize lines of continuity with traditional ways of doing things. Whatever its drawbacks, traditional peer-review at least has the strength that it has largely been accepted as the standard route to ultimately publishing material that is "finalized". It is likely best, in establishing the infrastructure for alternative publishing models that will challenge current high-pricing, not to become unduly "creative" in testing new approaches. This can occur later, once the crisis of affordability is resolved. In this context, build on past practices, then challenge them. While the author of this webpage is perhaps more interested in Aristotle than Burke, the latter's views seem especially germane here, as a way to obviate the chaos of the current French Revolution in publishing.
BMC makes available some subscription overlays. This is a for-profit organization. However, there is no reason why subscription overlays cannot also be produced by universities or societies or libraries. A few comments about each:
(a.) As for university publishing operations, they would have to approach this with the understanding that this is a cost-recovery model, not a profit-making one. Whether current university publishers would be willing to engage such a model is of course unknown. Large aggregation would enable an economy of scale that might enable pulling this off.
(b.) As for societies, those societies that regard publishing activities as a way of funding other non-publishing society activities would not be interested in this model. Philosophical questions arise here about whether societies should help the crisis in pricing by adopting, even more so than in the past, low-cost publishing initiatives, even on a merely cost-recovery basis. It is unlikely that they will be willing to do so.
(c.) As for libraries:
(1.) We already one example of a library that has become involved in publishing. Perhaps libraries, which already in the current environment have become quite savvy technologically, could pull this off. There is no reason to think they cannot. Consider the technical capabilities of just a mid-sized university in accomplishing digital projects such as these. Whether they can handle the business and logistical dimensions would remain to be seen. However, consider whatever university libraries make services available to corporations or the public for a fee would be an example of how libraries can become involved in "business".
(2.) Universities and their libraries can benefit from software that is available for journals publication management; this would take care of one dimension of the logistics.
(3.) large aggregation would enable an economy of scale that might enable universities to pull off a significant commitment to subscription overlays.
(4.) Participation of a large "IR", such as arxiv.org at Cornell, would be of value here. Also valuable would be consortial participation of universities, again to achieve economies of scale.
This is an open question.
The articles on this model could either be posted on the publisher's own repository or on someone else's (or on many repositories). The idea in any case is that the material on the IR is openly accessible to the public. Just the table of contents and associated revenue-generating services would not be, as a business sine qua non for the journal's existence.There may be value in having the material posted on a widely recognized repository. The latter would provide one more set of search methods for getting to the content, plus there might be certain economies that come with posting everything centrally on this model. That said, it's not clear however how necessary it would be to post the material on an independent IR.
One motivation for this model is that in many cases current commercial pricing of ejournals is excessive and therefore unjust. (Here, the tradition of reflection on the "just price", with its roots in the medieval period if not before, is relevant.) A second motivation is that there are certain goods that should not be subjected to an undue level of "commodification". Intellectual production falls in this category. This is a long story.
One assumption that does not animate this model is anti-business, anti-market sentiment. However, given the two motivations identified above, and the overall failure of the commercial realm to offer up low-cost options, there is a very strong argument for non-profit organizations to develop business models that compete with the high pricing imposed by commercial entities.
What relationship does this model bear to current "green" approach involving self-archiving efforts by authors?
The links are at best remote. The so-called green approach has perhaps played some role in spurring the development of IR's and contributed to awareness about alternative publishing models.
However, the green approach is marred, in my judgment, by a number of difficulties. The viability of the subscription overlay approach does not ride on the following critique; however, this critique suggests that more effort be placed by universities on developing overlays, rather than on pursuing the green approach, if it comes down to an either-or economic decision about what course to pursue, realizing that not all universities or institutions do not have unlimited staff support.
Concerning the green approach:
(i.) It sees too much distance between the issues of affordability and access to literature, when in fact these are tightly related issues. Quite simply, high costs make it difficult to expand access not only to journal literature, but to other types of literature such as online or print reference works and monographs. (See the opening comments of this webpage.)
(ii.) It makes accessibility to journal literature dependent on external factors such as: largesse of publishers, willingness of authors to self-archive; and a desire for institutions and governments to mandate that research results be archived by their producers. Also, aside from the issue whether many institutions will in fact mandate that their researchers archive materials (otherwise made available by publishers in duplicative fashion), the question arises whether even if an institution does create this mandate, researchers will follow suit and self-archive materials consistently.
(iii.) It does not promise the existence of a stable infrastructure for the future, given that it depends in "after-glow" fashion on the existence of a stable of journals for which institutions are currently paying high costs. Even if its stated goal of achieving 100% open access to ejournal articles was achieved, the system on which it is based would remain unstable and dependent on publisher extension of green rights, and/or government support for such a system, and/or continued participation of researchers.
An independent, philosophically tinged point: with respect to requirements by governments that research results be archived, this may involve a surfeit of government intervention, in violation of what is known in social philosophy as the "principle of subsidiarity". (No assumption is made here whether government funding of research is also in violation of that principle; the latter in certain cases may be necessary in ways that mandating of self-archiving would not be.)
What are further differentiae (sub-species) of the "subscription overlay"?
Hybrids of various kinds are conceivable. No commentary is offered here on their viability.
To reiterate from above, for convenience of reference here is the definition of the subscription overlay:
b. Subscription overlays: overlay journals in which an institution or individual pays for the right to view a table of contents for a journal (and, if available, the full aggregation of tables of contents for a group of journals), and where each article is otherwise accessible for free by virtue of being loaded on a freely accessible institutional repository or repositories. Access to articles therefore can be via the table of contents or via use of search engines such as OAIster or Google.Imaginable sub-species are these; in each case, the table of contents would (by virtue of the definition of the subscription overlay) be accessible at the publisher website only for pay:
Yet another distinction:
Thanks to David Goodman discussing the Medline example and for more generally for his educative contributions to discussions of alternative publishing models. Thanks to other individuals who have responded to the model above.
Brian Simbolibrs4@lehigh.edu(610) 758-5003