While I was working on a longer text, I gathered – more or less as a by-product – information from studies and reports on the (first copy) costs of a scientific article. As a result, it can only be noted that the information available on these costs (and related costs as margins) are very different and really difficult to compare. The latter confirms my impression that there is a huge lack of transparency in the scientific publications market. The following table may give some insight in the information I found. It is also available via GitHub (https://github.com/scinoptica/article_costs.git), so please feel free to improve/ update the data or add new information.nn
| nnSource | RINn2008 | nnBritish Academyn2007nn | nnDubinin2012nn | nnWalthamn2010nn | Shiebern2012 | Houghton et al.n2010 | Van Noordenn2013 |
| First copy costs of an article, including profit margins | – | – | – | – | – | nn1.127 £ | nnPNAS: 3.700 $nnNature: 30.000 – 40.000 $ |
| First copy costs of an article, without profit margins | 1.136 £ | – | nn420 – 650 $ | – | nn10 $ | – | – |
| First copy costs, including profit margins per page | – | – | – | nn360 $ | – | – | – |
| Margin | nn18% | – | – | – | – | – | Closed Access on average 20-30%,nn nnOpen Access (commercial) on average 15% |
| Cost of peer review (not included in first copy costs): | 1.194 £ | 900 £ | – | – | – | – | – |
| Methods | analysis of literature and reports | expert discussion | empirical study | empirical study | case study | analysis of literature and reports | analysis of literature and reports, interviews |
| Disciplines | mixed | Social Sciences & Humanities | mixed | Social Sciences & Humanities | Machine Learning | mixed | mixed |
nn nnSources:nnBritish Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences. (2007). Peer Review : the challenges for the humanities and social sciences. A British Academy Report. Retrieved from http://www.britac.ac.uk/policy/peer-review/contents.cfmnnDubini, P. (2012). PEER Economics : the effect of large scale deposit on scholarly research publishing. Retrieved from http://www.peerproject.eu/fileadmin/media/presentations/PEER_economics_29May12_Brussels-1.pdfnnHoughton, J. W., Rasmussen, B., & Sheehan, P. (2010). Economic and Social Returns on Investment in Open Archiving Publicly Funded Research Outputs. Melbourne. Retrieved from http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/papers/vuFRPAA/index.shtmlnnResearch Information Network. (2008). Activities, costs and funding flows in the scholarly communications system (p. 88). Retrieved from http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicating-and-disseminating-research/activities-costs-and-funding-flows-scholarly-communShieber, S. (2012). An efficient journal. The Occasional Pamphlet. Retrieved June 05, 2012, from http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/nnVan Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature, 495(7442), 426–429. doi:10.1038/495426annWaltham, M. (2010). Humanities and social science journals: a pilot study of eight US associations. Learned Publishing, 23(2), 136–143. doi:10.1087/20100209nn nn nn
- scidecode continues to be scidecode, but scinoptica lives again - 9. Dezember 2022
- Update on the scidecode study on Persistent Identifiers (PIDs) - 22. Mai 2022
- Open Journal Systems (OJS) Installationen in Deutschland - 19. Mai 2022
