{"id":1203,"date":"2012-03-06T09:55:53","date_gmt":"2012-03-06T14:55:53","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/?p=1203"},"modified":"2012-03-18T17:55:59","modified_gmt":"2012-03-18T21:55:59","slug":"an-efficient-journal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2012\/03\/06\/an-efficient-journal\/","title":{"rendered":"An efficient journal"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n\n\n
\"...time<\/a><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
\u201cYou seem to believe in fairies.\u201d
\n<\/span><\/span>Photo of the Cottingley Fairies<\/a>, 1917, by Elsie Wright via Wikipedia.<\/span><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Aficionados of open access should know about the Journal of Machine Learning Research<\/em> (JMLR<\/em>), an open-access journal in my own research field of artificial intelligence, a subfield of computer science concerned with the computational implementation and understanding of behaviors that in humans are considered intelligent. The journal became the topic of some dispute in a conversation that took place a few months ago in the comment stream of the Scholarly Kitchen blog<\/a> between computer science professor Yann LeCun<\/a> and scholarly journal publisher Kent Anderson<\/a>, with LeCun stating that “The best publications in my field are not only open access, but completely free to the readers and<\/em> to the authors.” He used JMLR<\/em> as the exemplar. Anderson expressed incredulity:<\/p>\n

I\u2019m not entirely clear how JMLR<\/em> is supported, but there is financial and infrastructure support going on, most likely from MIT. The servers are not “marginal cost = 0” \u2014 as a computer scientist, you surely understand the 20-25% annual maintenance costs for computer systems (upgrades, repairs, expansion, updates). MIT is probably footing the bill for this. The journal has a 27% acceptance rate, so there is definitely a selection process going on. There is an EIC, a managing editor, and a production editor, all likely paid positions. There is a Webmaster. I think your understanding of JMLR<\/em>\u2019s financing is only slightly worse than mine \u2014 I don\u2019t understand how it\u2019s financed, but I know it\u2019s financed somehow. You seem to believe in fairies.<\/p>\n

Since I have some pretty substantial knowledge of JMLR<\/em> and how it works, I thought I’d comment on the facts of the matter.<\/p>\n

First, some history. JMLR<\/em> was founded when most of the editorial board of the Kluwer journal Machine Learning<\/em> (now a Springer journal<\/a>) resigned to establish JMLR, Inc., a nonprofit to develop and publish the new journal on an open access model. The first editor-in-chief was Leslie Kaelbling, a computer science professor at MIT. The journal’s first papers appeared in October 2000. Its twelfth annual volume just completed this past December.<\/p>\n

One of the main things that journal publishers do is manage the logistics of the peer review and filtering of submitted articles. Starting with the former Machine Learning<\/em> team, the journal put together an\u00a0editorial board and\u00a0a cadre of action editors<\/a> to handle the reviewing process.\u00a0At the time the journal was launched, there weren’t the abundance of\u00a0open-source journal management platforms<\/a>\u00a0that are now available. Being computer scientists, the editorial board took the expedient of implementing their own, a custom system that they still use. Much of the clerical effort of tracking the peer review process \u2014 assigning papers to action editors, engaging reviewers, tracking reviews, acceptances and rejections, and the like \u2014 is automated by the platform.\u00a0Of course, these days, the platform situation has\u00a0eased considerably<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Almost immediately, the journal was appreciated as being of top quality. The number of articles it published increased quickly over the first few years, its\u00a0illustrious editorial team<\/a>\u00a0serving to convince prospective authors of its seriousness. Its first year in ISI’s rankings, it had the highest\u00a0Impact Factor<\/a> of any journal in its Web of Science subject category (“computer science, artificial intelligence”). It is currently ranked eighth (of 108 journals) by Impact Factor and fourth by Eigenfactor<\/a> and Article Influence. Machine Learning<\/em> is down to 33rd. If you’re into that kind of thing<\/a>.<\/div>\n

The journal does not charge any submission or publication fees and has never done so. It has never taken any advertising. Indeed, it has never had any direct revenue at all. In fact, JMLR, Inc. didn’t even have a bank account until recently; there was no need.<\/p>\n

Of course, there are costs, but they are all provided through in-kind support. By far the largest costs are the labor required for peer reviewing and its management by the editorial board, but this is all volunteer effort as in most all scholarly journals. The primary people involved, the editor-in-chief, managing editor, and production editor, are all unpaid, contra Anderson’s conjecture. They volunteer for JMLR<\/em> in their spare time away from their day jobs as computer science professors. MIT implicitly underwrites some clerical help, since Kaelbling’s administrative assistant at MIT does a small amount of work for the journal, amounting to a few hours per year.<\/p>\n

The webmaster is a student volunteer. Anderson is right that MIT provides the web server, saving JMLR<\/em> the tens of dollars per month<\/a> they would otherwise have to pay for commercial hosting. Kaelbling has paid for the domain name jmlr.org<\/a> out of her own pocket. The going rate for .org domains<\/a> is about $15 per year.<\/p>\n

In addition to management of the peer review process, publishers provide production services as well, such as copy-editing and typesetting. One of the main motivations for JMLR<\/em> leaving Kluwer was the sense that the help they were supposed to be providing was sparse and better avoided. Kluwer did no copy-editing of articles. JMLR<\/em> relies on reviewers for the kind of light copy-editing they always have done in the normal course of reviewing. For accepted articles that require large amounts of\u00a0language\u00a0help, the authors are requested to find copy-editing help at their expense; such cases are extremely rare. Other than that, no copy-editing is done. It doesn’t seem to have harmed the journal’s perceived quality.<\/p>\n

As for the typesetting of articles, computer science authors typically use the open-source\u00a0LaTeX<\/a> typesetting system for writing their articles, a system designed for beautiful typesetting of mathematical material\u00a0and far better for mathematical\u00a0typesetting\u00a0than the typical systems publishers are accustomed to. The process of retypesetting that many journals have historically performed inevitably introduces errors, leading to a product inferior to that computer science authors typically provide. JMLR<\/em> used an approach where authors submit camera-ready copy based on a publisher-supplied LaTeX style file. By dropping the retypesetting with an inferior system, errors in the process are eliminated and the quality of typesetting improved. Increasingly, journals in computer science and related fields (mathematics, physics) are moving to this system. In fact, Machine Learning<\/em>\u00a0itself accepts LaTeX submissions and provides an appropriate LaTeX style file for authors to use.\u00a0Thus, the total cost to JMLR<\/em> for\u00a0copy-editing and typesetting\u00a0is zero.<\/p>\n

The biggest expense, it turns out paradoxically, is paying a tax accountant. Kaelbling explained the problem to me:<\/p>\n

We have to file a bunch of annoying forms to maintain tax exempt status, etc. I have paid for the original incorporation and some amount of the accountant out of my pocket. But I have gotten a couple of donations (totaling $7K) which I have also used for that stuff. It wouldn’t need to be so expensive, except I’m too disorganized and late to keep on top of it myself.<\/p>\n

JMLR<\/em> has always appeared both free online and by subscription in print. The print edition was originally intended to satisfy the desires of authors who hung onto a view that online-only journals may not be viewed as “serious”, but also has the advantage of\u00a0substantially\u00a0solving the digital preservation problem for the journal. The print edition of the first four volumes was published by MIT Press, at first\u00a0quarterly, then semi-quarterly as submissions grew and more articles were accepted. JMLR<\/em> received no revenue from the print edition and paid no subvention to MIT Press. MIT Press handled all aspects of fulfilling the print subscriptions and kept all the revenues from a quite reasonable subscription fee of just under 30 cents per page. From the fifth volume on, the print edition was taken over by Microtome Publishing<\/a> under the same zero-zero arrangement. Under Microtome Publishing’s approach, which leverages important aspects of the print editions specific to open-access journals<\/a>, the subscription cost decreased dramatically over the next few volumes, settling at a steady state of 8 cents per page for the last several volumes.<\/p>\n

Adding it all up, a reasonable imputed estimate for\u00a0JMLR<\/em>\u2019s total direct costs other than the volunteered labor (that is, tax accountant, web hosting, domain names, clerical work, etc.) is less than $10,000, covering the almost 1,000 articles the journal has published since its founding \u2014 about $10 per article.\u00a0With regard to whose understanding of\u00a0JMLR<\/em>\u2019s financing is better than whose, Yann LeCun I think comes out on top.<\/p>\n

[Update 3\/18\/12:<\/strong> In the comments section, Leslie Kaelbling corrects her estimate of outside donations to $3,500, so I should revise my estimate of JMLR\u2019<\/em>s cost per article to be about $6.50 per article.]<\/p>\n

How do I know all this about JMLR<\/em>? Because (full disclosure alert) I am Microtome Publishing<\/a>.<\/em> Microtome is a sole proprietorship providing “publishing services in support of open access to the scholarly literature.” I’ve worked with JMLR<\/em> for many years now, and consequently have gained a good understanding of all aspects of its operations and of the operations of a\u00a0subscription-based print journal as well. I don’t pretend to have all of the knowledge of a professional publisher by any means. On the other hand, I don’t believe in fairies.<\/p>\n

Does JMLR<\/em>\u2019s success and efficiency mean that all journals could run this way? Of course not. First, computer science journals are in a particularly good situation for being operated at low cost. Computer scientists possess all of the technological expertise required to efficiently manage and operate an online journal. Journal publishing is an information\u00a0industry\u00a0and computer scientists are specialists in information processing. Second, the level of volunteerism that JMLR<\/em> relies on is atypical for the entire spectrum of journals. Paid editorial positions for computer science journals are exceptionally rare; we’re used to the volunteerism of running a journal.\u00a0As authors, computer scientists are accustomed to performing their own typesetting and we prefer to do it ourselves.\u00a0JMLR<\/em> reviewers are relied on for whatever copy-editing is done. Paying professional copy-editors if that was desired would add more to the cost per page (though apparently not even Machine Learning\u2019<\/em>s commercial publisher was doing so when the board left).\u00a0Third, some of the costs of operating a journal are the overhead costs that are being absorbed by various institutions. An independent publisher would have to pay for office space for staff, for instance, whereas the primary editors use their homes or offices, hiding that cost.<\/p>\n

Nonetheless, the success of JMLR<\/em> does provide a clue that the cost of running a premier journal might be far less than publishers imply, if they were to rethink the process substantially \u2014 maybe not $10 per article, but surely far less than the $5,000 average revenue per article<\/a> that scholarly publishers currently receive. This expectation is borne out by the several non-profit and commercial open-access journal publishers that are able to operate in the black with\u00a0publication\u00a0fees a fraction of that average.<\/p>\n

Anderson closes his comments on JMLR<\/em> with these recommendations for LeCun:<\/p>\n

You should look at yourself in the mirror, and ask why you don\u2019t understand even the most basic financial realities (computers cost money to run, editors get paid, and webmasters get paid), why you don\u2019t understand how JMLR<\/em> is funded, how much you\u2019ve benefited from tuition\/fee increases foisted on students at +395% over the past decade,[1]<\/sup><\/a> and why you feel compelled to argue points you haven\u2019t adequately examined (you tell me how JMLR<\/em> is funded, and you\u2019ll have much better face validity).<\/p>\n

The call not to\u00a0argue points one hasn’t adequately examined is surely apt.<\/p>\n

\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a>With regard to tuition hikes foisted on students see\u00a0my earlier post<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u201cYou seem to believe in fairies.\u201d Photo of the Cottingley Fairies, 1917, by Elsie Wright via Wikipedia. Aficionados of open access should know about the Journal of Machine Learning Research (JMLR), an open-access journal in my own research field of artificial intelligence, a subfield of computer science concerned with the computational implementation and understanding of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2110,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[380,618,68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1203","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-computer-science","category-open-access","category-scholarly-communication"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5pLfN-jp","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1284,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2012\/03\/30\/statement-before-the-house-science-committee\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":0},"title":"Statement before the House Science Committee","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Friday, March 30, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cMajesty of Law\u201d Statue in front of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington, D.C., photo by flickr user NCinDC, used by permission (CC-by-nd) Here is my written testimony filed in association with my appearance yesterday at the\u00a0hearing on \"Federally Funded Research: Examining Public Access and Scholarly Publication Interests\" before\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "open access"","block_context":{"text":"open access","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/scholarly-communication\/open-access\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":666,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2011\/01\/15\/a-ray-of-sunshine-in-the-open-access-future\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":1},"title":"A ray of sunshine in the open-access future","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Saturday, January 15, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"Used by permission of PLoS I'm flying back from Berlin, where I gave talks at the Academic Publishing in Europe (APE) Conference and the Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) Symposium. Karmically, the SOAP Symposium was held in the very room, in Harnack Haus of the Max Planck Society, where\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "open access"","block_context":{"text":"open access","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/scholarly-communication\/open-access\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1106,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2012\/01\/04\/switching-to-open-access-for-the-new-year\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":2},"title":"Switching to open access for the new year","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Wednesday, January 4, 2012","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c...time to switch...\u201d A very old light switch (2008) by RayBanBro66 via flickr. Used by permission (CC by-nc-nd) The journal Research in Learning Technology has switched its approach from closed to open access as of New Year's 2012. Congratulations to the Association for Learning Technology (ALT) and its Central Executive\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "computational linguistics"","block_context":{"text":"computational linguistics","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/linguistics\/computational-linguistics\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1789,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2013\/07\/10\/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":3},"title":"Ecumenical open access and the Finch Report principles","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Wednesday, July 10, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"...myopic... \"myopic\" image by flickr user haglundc used by permission. I was invited by the British Academy for the Humanities and Social Sciences to write a piece on last year's report \"Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: How to expand access to research publications\" by the\u00a0Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "open access"","block_context":{"text":"open access","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/scholarly-communication\/open-access\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":1647,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2013\/01\/29\/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":4},"title":"Why open access is better for scholarly societies","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Tuesday, January 29, 2013","format":false,"excerpt":"[This is a heavily edited transcript of a talk that I gave on January 3, 2013, at a panel on open access at the 87th Annual Meeting of the Linguistic Society of America (LSA, the main scholarly society for linguistics, and publisher of the journal Language), co-sponsored by the Modern\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "open access"","block_context":{"text":"open access","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/scholarly-communication\/open-access\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2104,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2014\/06\/04\/how-universities-can-support-open-access-journal-publishing\/","url_meta":{"origin":1203,"position":5},"title":"How universities can support open-access journal publishing","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Wednesday, June 4, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"To university administrators and librarians: ...enablement becomes transformation... \"Shelf of journals\" image from Flickr user University of Illinois Library. Used by permission. As a university administrator or librarian, you may see the future in open-access journal publishing and may be motivated to help bring that future about.1 I would urge\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "libraries"","block_context":{"text":"libraries","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/category\/scholarly-communication\/libraries\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2110"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1203"}],"version-history":[{"count":53,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1271,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1203\/revisions\/1271"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1203"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1203"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1203"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}