tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post3747073377943925433..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: UCL Vice-Provost comments on the Independent Review of the Implementation of the RCUK Open Access policyRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-14790163366987589942015-03-26T12:08:40.935+00:002015-03-26T12:08:40.935+00:00Concerning the differences in the costs of APCs be...Concerning the differences in the costs of APCs between hybrid journals and full OA journals, be they published by a "non- sub publisher" or a "sub publisher": as in most of the reports or communications on that topic,the actual difference in "publication cost" is once more largely underestimated here. Indeed, nobody seems to be aware that, when speaking about full OA journal, the "APC" gives the final cost, whereas, for "OA options" in hybrids, the "APC" always adds to the "normal publication costs", which can variy between $0 and almost $ 3,000. If we estimate the mean value of "normal publication cost" to around $700 (our internal study on biomedical journals), it thus gives a mean total of around £1,849(APC) + $ 500 "normal" = £ 2350. ie more than twice that of a "full OA journal", whatever the kind of publisher. In the case of some hallucinatingly high "normal publication cost" journals, like EMBO journal (around 2,700 euros for 10 pages), adding APCs will lead to a total of almost 7,000 euros....I really suggest that such an "additivity" of the APCs and "normal publication costs" in hybrid journals be largely advertised... and reinforces the question "why such a difference?". Kind regards. Didier Pélaprat (research Director, France)pelapratnoreply@blogger.com