{"id":360,"date":"2009-12-20T22:50:55","date_gmt":"2009-12-21T03:50:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/?p=360"},"modified":"2015-12-16T11:25:32","modified_gmt":"2015-12-16T16:25:32","slug":"why-not-underwrite-hybrid-fees","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2009\/12\/20\/why-not-underwrite-hybrid-fees\/","title":{"rendered":"Why not underwrite hybrid fees?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Several publisher representatives have recently asked about why the Harvard open-access fund does not cover hybrid fees<\/a>. I thought I’d explain my thinking on this issue, though I am certainly not doctrinaire when it comes to institutional underwriting of hybrid fees, and am perfectly in accord with institutions coming to different decisions on the issue.\u00a0 In fact, as I mention below, I can imagine (counterfactual) situations in which I would support Harvard’s open-access fund underwriting hybrid fees.<\/p>\n

In the case of the current Harvard policy, I’ll explain why for the time being at least we are not underwriting hybrid fees.\u00a0 My comments extend the arguments I give in my PLoS Biology<\/em> paper<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Hybrid fees would be worth supporting to the extent that (as their proponents claim) they provide an approach to smoothly transitioning to an open-access publication fee business model.\u00a0 The argument is that as uptake increases in payment of the hybrid fees, revenue smoothly shifts from the reader side to the author side in a revenue-neutral way.\u00a0 At the end, the journal is openly accessible, with hybrid fees (now become just publication fees) providing the revenue.\u00a0 To the extent that the hybrid system works this way, there is no “double dipping” \u2014 using hybrid fees as a way to increase revenue rather than transitioning to OA in a revenue-neutral manner.\u00a0 I’ll call such a model “true hybrid”.<\/p>\n

There are two problems with supporting hybrid fee systems.\u00a0 First, they may not be set up in the way just described as true hybrids, and determining whether this is the case may in fact not be possible.\u00a0 Second, even if they were set up in this way, game-theoretic problems may inhere in the system that prevent them from realizing the transition.<\/p>\n

Whether “double dipping” is going on is independent of when the hybrid option is set up.\u00a0 In particular, whether a journal is hybrid from the start or a hybrid option is added well after the journal is founded is irrelevant.\u00a0 What matters is the dynamics of how hybrid uptake affects subscription fees and revenues.\u00a0 To be a true hybrid model, hybrid fees must be set at a rate no more than the true average revenue per article, so that universal<\/em> uptake of hybrid payments is not a means to revenue enhancement.\u00a0 Further, uptake of hybrid fee revenues must be directly offset by reductions in subscription fee revenues, so that incremental<\/em> uptake of hybrid payments is not a means to revenue enhancement.<\/p>\n

True hybrid journals must therefore have a degree of transparency that is difficult to imagine achieving.\u00a0 The journal would have to demonstrate linearly decreasing subscription fees in direct proportion to the hybrid fee uptake.\u00a0 Determining hybrid fee uptake is straightforward.\u00a0 But determining subscription fee reduction is not.\u00a0 Publishers practice price discrimination, bundling, and price changes over time<\/a>, which separately and together make it impossible to tell what a subscriber’s costs would have been absent the hybrid fee discount.\u00a0 The issue of transparency is not all or nothing.\u00a0 Certainly some publishers, Oxford University Press<\/a> for instance, may be more transparent than others<\/a> in their hybrid discounting practice.\u00a0 But determining whether appropriate reductions are taking place is difficult at best.<\/p>\n

Even if there were some way to determine that a journal were a “true hybrid”, receiving no incremental revenue from its hybrid program, there is a more fundamental problem with the normal way in which hybrid programs are implemented, viz., that subscription revenue reductions are shared among all subscribers.\u00a0 As institutions decide whether or not to underwrite hybrid journals, they are confronted with a kind of prisoner’s dilemma<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In a prisoner’s dilemma, a set of agents can either cooperate or defect.\u00a0 If they all cooperate, all are better off.\u00a0 But if any defect, all are worse off except for the defector.\u00a0 In the case at hand, a cooperating institution underwrites hybrid fees, a defecting institution does not.\u00a0 Given a status quo ante (as we have) of all institutions defecting, all would be better off if they cooperated, since they would pay the same amount (true hybrids being revenue-neutral) but would gain open access.\u00a0 However, at the margin, an institution cooperating sees increased costs from the hybrid fees, but only a share (and a small one at that) of the subscription revenue reduction.\u00a0 Defectors see a reduction in their subscription costs relative to the status quo ante at no cost to themselves.\u00a0 Though both fully defecting and fully cooperating are equilibria<\/a>,<\/a>[1]<\/sup> there is no transitional path from the former to the latter.\u00a0 This is an inherent flaw in the hybrid system as traditionally conceived.\u00a0 Empirical evidence accords with this analysis; uptake of hybrid fees has been exceptionally low.<\/p>\n

It may be that institutions can be convinced to act temporarily against their financial interests in the expectation that others will join them and the cooperating equilibrium will be reached.\u00a0 Especially in the current economic climate, I’m not sanguine about this prospect.\u00a0 And without such temporary action against self-interest, the hybrid model is no transitional model at all.\u00a0 If however, evidence accumulates that the transparency problem can be addressed and true hybrids can be identified and institutions appear increasingly willing to pay these fees against temporary self-interest, I can imagine that the Harvard fund might then change its policy for support.\u00a0 Similarly, if changes to the hybrid model were made that eliminated the prisoner’s dilemma \u2014 I believe that this may be possible, and hope to talk about it in a future post<\/a> \u2014 then again hybrid fees ought to be supportable for true hybrid journals.<\/p>\n

\n

<\/a>[1]<\/sup>Actually, full cooperation is not an equilibrium per se, as each agent still has an incentive to defect from cooperation even at that point. However, once all agents (or even most) were to cooperate, the hybrid system could be jettisoned for a true OA model that effectively removed the defecting alternative.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Several publisher representatives have recently asked about why the Harvard open-access fund does not cover hybrid fees. I thought I’d explain my thinking on this issue, though I am certainly not doctrinaire when it comes to institutional underwriting of hybrid fees, and am perfectly in accord with institutions coming to different decisions on the issue.\u00a0 […]<\/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":[618,68],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-360","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open-access","category-scholarly-communication"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p5pLfN-5O","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":532,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2010\/08\/06\/how-much-does-a-cope-compliant-open-access-fund-cost\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"position":0},"title":"How much does a COPE-compliant open-access fund cost?","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Friday, August 6, 2010","format":false,"excerpt":"Tightrope walker, sculpture, Berlin, 2008. Photo from beezerella at flickr.com. Used by permission. The short answer? \u00a0Almost nothing. The Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity is a statement of commitment to \"the\u00a0timely establishment of\u00a0durable mechanisms for\u00a0underwriting reasonable publication charges for articles written by its\u00a0faculty and published in\u00a0fee-based open-access journals and\u00a0for which\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":"Tightrope walker, sculpture, Berlin, 2008. Photo from beezerella at flickr.com. Used by permission.","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/farm5.static.flickr.com\/4053\/4608050847_ea6934502c_m.jpg?resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200},"classes":[]},{"id":1000,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2011\/11\/16\/how-should-funding-agencies-pay-open-access-fees\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"position":1},"title":"How should funding agencies pay open-access fees?","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Wednesday, November 16, 2011","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201c...a drop in the bucket.\u201dDrop I (2007) by Delox - Martin De\u00e1k via flickr. Used by permission (CC by-nc-nd) At the recent Berlin 9 conference, there was much talk about the role of funding agencies in open-access publication, both through funding-agency-operated journals like the new eLife journal\u00a0and through direct reimbursement\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":382,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2014\/03\/28\/a-true-transitional-open-access-business-model\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"position":2},"title":"A true transitional open-access business model","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Friday, March 28, 2014","format":false,"excerpt":"\u2026provide a transition path\u2026 \"The Temple of Transition, Burning Man 2011\" photo by flickr user Michael Holden, used by permission David Willetts, the UK Minister for Universities and Research, has written a letter to Janet Finch responding to her committee\u2019s \u201cA Review of Progress in Implementing the Recommendations of the\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":1789,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2013\/07\/10\/ecumenical-open-access-and-the-finch-report-principles\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"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":2104,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2014\/06\/04\/how-universities-can-support-open-access-journal-publishing\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"position":4},"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":[]},{"id":239,"url":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2009\/07\/22\/commercial-publishers-arent-the-bad-guys\/","url_meta":{"origin":360,"position":5},"title":"Commercial publishers aren’t the bad guys","author":"Stuart Shieber","date":"Wednesday, July 22, 2009","format":false,"excerpt":"Philip Davis brings up the issue of whether underwriting open-access publication charges, so as to \"level the playing field\" (as I've recommended elsewhere) disadvantages \"a third team\". By focusing on the author-pays and the reader-pays teams, we ignore a third team: publishers who rely on page charges from authors. This\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":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360","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=360"}],"version-history":[{"count":14,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2396,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/360\/revisions\/2396"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=360"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=360"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=360"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}