text:
Chapter 4: Economics of Scholarly Communication in Transition
Prices that libraries pay for subscriptions vary widely among journals; for physics and mathematics publications the cost per character varies by as much as a factor of 40 (Barschall, 1986).
This seemingly innocuous sentence is the beginning of Barschall's The cost of physics journals. Scholarly publisher Gordon & Breach, reported in this article to be the most expensive of physics publishers, did not react well to this statement. They sued Barschall and the publishers of this and a related article, American Institute of Physics (AIP), and the American Physical Society (APS), in four countries, refusing to follow normal scholarly practice of publishing a refutation in the journals where the initial results were published. The lawsuits lasted for over a decade. Barschall, AIP, and APS were exonerated after Barschall's death, as recorded by Lustig (2001). Gordon & Breach no longer exists, having been acquired by Taylor & Francis, now owned by Informa.plc, but Barschall's articles are still readily accessible from a Stanford University and Yale University (1997) website which also details the court cases.
Things are looking up for the scholar of the economics of scholarly communication. There are still plenty of challenges to locating Information. Most scholarly journals are now sold in bundles, often through license agreements that contain nondisclosure agreements, making the kind of per-journal comparison done by Barschall very difficult. Financial Information for shareholders of large commercial companies is readily available, but not necessarily easy (or even possible) to parse out for economics analysis, and financial Information for privately owned scholarly publishers is not necessarily available at all; this is generally seen as confidential, proprietary Information. Amalgamated Information is available through a company called Outsell – but at prices like $1,295 for Mark Ware's latest 22-page report on Scientific, Technical and Medical Information: 2011 Market Forecast and Trends report (Outsell, 2011), this researcher will do without. Then there is wrapping your mind around all of the resources that go into scholarly communication, on a global basis. But thanks to the courage and persistence of Barschall, AIP, and APS, it appears to be possible to do research in this area without fear of being sued.
Academic library budgets sustain scholarly journal publishing
This is a key point in understanding the economics of scholarly journal publishing. Universities, and, to a lesser extent, research organizations, have long been the main producers and the main consumers of the scholarly journal literature, with the revenue flowing through their organizational libraries to publishers. With electronic media, "the contradiction between producers and consumers is not inherent; on the contrary, it has to be artificially reinforced by economic and administrative measures", as Enzensberger pointed out in 1974 (p. 106). In terms of scholarly publishing, these artificial measures are the academic reward system which artificially props up the entrenched commercial scholarly publishing industry by requiring publication in high impact factor journals, and the inelastic market that keeps the commercial interests engaged due to above average profits, as we saw in chapter two.
Michael Mabe (2011), CEO of the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), recently affirmed that about 80-90% of the $8 billion in revenue that goes into production of the world's peer-reviewed scholarly journals comes from library subscriptions, as reported by Ware and Mabe (2009, p. 16). Ware and Mabe's analysis is based in part on research by the Research Information Network (2008), which found that journals publishing revenues are generated primarily from academic library subscriptions (68-75% of the total revenue), followed by corporate subscriptions (15-17%), advertising (4%), membership fees and personal subscriptions (3%), and various author-side payments (3%).
Figure 6: where does the revenue for scholarly journal publishing come from?
Source: Research Information Network (2008)
Because universities are both the primary producers and consumers of scholarly journals, this suggests the possibility of transitioning economic support from the demand (subscriptions) to the supply (publishing services or journal production) side. There are two basic models for accomplishing this transition, with a number of variations. One model involves taking on production services (university / library press model). The other model involves paying for production services, such as open access article processing fees.
There are significant challenges to making a transition of this nature. Currently, academic library budgets are largely tied up with subscriptions to "must-have" journals, leaving little flexibility to shift support to open access. The vast majority of journals are still sold on a subscriptions basis. A global shift to open access publishing requires publication outlets in sufficient numbers and of sufficient quality to meet the needs of all scholars. A global shift from demand to supply side takes global commitment and participation on the part of libraries, scholars, and publishers alike. Despite the challenges, there are many signs that this transition is already well underway, such as the Dramatic Growth of Open Access reported in the previous chapter, and the library publishing operations mentioned in the second chapter. One of my central arguments is that a prudent transition of academic library budgets from support for subscriptions journals to support for open access publishing will be key to a successful transition to open access.
Other revenue sources
Academic library budgets would not be the sole source of revenue in an open access future. As noted in the Research Information Network (2008) report, 15-17% of revenue for scholarly journal publishing comes from corporate subscriptions. These corporate subscriptions will include some research organizations, and it makes sense to assume that these will contribute to paying for the production of the results of the research that they conduct. Research grant funds can often be used to pay for open access article processing fees. The Wellcome Trust has created a fund especially to pay for such fees. Many research funding agencies have long provided researchers with an option to use funds for dissemination of results. For example, the U.S. National Institutes of Health (2005) calculated that it made available about $30 million annually to its grantees for publication and page charges. The Canadian Institutes of Health Research has long had a policy that funds could be used for dissemination purposes. Library and university based publishing outfits can take advantage of local infrastructure such as servers and internet connectivity. As Edgar and Willinsky (2010) note, there are also substantial sources of subsidy funding available to many scholarly journals.
A healthy scholarly journal publishing system, in addition to providing open access, must be affordable. As discussed in the second chapter, the background to the transition to open access is a growing, entrenched commercial scholarly publishing sector earning significant revenue and profits. This section will address some of the major elements necessary to ensure that scholarly journal publishing will be affordable into the future.
How many journals, and how many articles?
To calculate the affordability of different options for scholarly journal publishing, one needs to know, at least approximately, how many journals and articles are produced on an annual basis. Björk, Roosr and Laurie (2008) calculated that the 23,700 journals listed in Ulrich's as of 2008 published approximately 1,350,000 peer-reviewed journal articles in 2006 1 . These are the figures and timelines used for the calculations in this chapter, recognizing that both journal article production and revenues have increased since that time.
Cost per article as a key metric
It takes resources to publish a peer-reviewed scholarly article, such as time spent editing and coordinating peer review, hardware, software, and connectivity for an online journal. The costs in dollar terms vary a great deal. Willinsky (2006) explored the costs per article of scholarly publishing in some depth and found a cost range from zero to $20,000 per article. Willinsky (2006, p. 69) quotes Gene Glass, founder of the online-only Education Policy Analysis Archives (EPAA) in 1993 as describing EPAA's budget as "Zero, nada, no budget, no grad assistant, no secretary." This is possible in scholarly publishing because of the large percentage of the work that is done on a voluntary basis by scholars paid through university salaries, and in-kind support that is generally available at universities, such as computers, software, and connectivity.
This is a marked contrast with the scholarly journal publishers' annual collection of about $8 billion US in revenue. Of this amount, as noted above, about 68-75% of the total ($5.4 – $6 billion) comes from academic library budgets. The substantial profits of the large commercial scholarly publishers, typically in the 30-40% range, suggests that there is more than enough funding in the current system from the academic libraries alone than is necessary to fund the costs of publishing. I argue that this amount is more than sufficient to fund reasonable publication costs for all of the world's scholarly peer-reviewed journal articles, but not necessarily the levels of profits that certain publishers are accustomed to collecting.
A key metric to assess efficiency in an open access environment, I have long argued, is the average cost per article. From 2004 to 2005, I conducted an ad hoc thought experiment called The Imaginary Journal of High-End Chemistry, exploring the necessary costs of publication through listserv and blog postings, incorporating feedback from scholarly publishers, librarians, and chemists (Morrison, 2005). The basic argument was that $500 per article should be sufficient to cover the necessary costs of online-only, fully open access publishing, even assuming well-paid staff working in a costly environment (Vancouver, British Columbia).
In 2004, The Wellcome Trust published the report, Costs and business models in scientific research publishing. After reviewing the literature on costs of scholarly publishing and discussions with senior staff at a range of publishers (including commercial publishers), the Wellcome Trust concluded: "A conservative estimate of the charge per article necessary for author-pays journals lies in the range $500–$2500, depending on the level of selectivity used by the journal, plus a contribution to overheads and profits" (p. 2).
Today's actual article processing fees (APFs) of successful, established fully open access publishers supports these predictions of The Wellcome Trust and from The Imaginary Journal of High-End Chemistry. The profitable Hindawi charges fees closer to the low end of the range. For example, the APF for Hindawi's Economics Research International is $400. BioMedCentral's average APF is $1,895, in the middle of the range. PLoS fees range from $1,350 for PLoS ONE to $2,900 for PLoS Biology. This is just over the top of the Wellcome Trust range – but then seven years has intervened between the publication of the report and now.
It is important to note that the Wellcome Trust cost estimates assume a largely commercial scholarly publishing system. Edgar and Willinsky (2010), surveying the group of journals using Open Journal Systems, mostly published by independent scholars, found an average cost of $188 per article.
The importance of cost per article in determining whether an open access scholarly publishing system is feasible from an economic standpoint is implicit in the conclusions of Walters (2007). Walters studied the economic implications for a switch to open access for a range of institutions from small colleges to a large research university with two models, a PLoS model and a model assuming maintaining current revenue streams for scholarly publishers.
Walters found that all institutions would save money with a PLoS model, with an average cost per article of $1,500. Walters also found that this model shifts the proportion of costs, so that the large research university pays a higher share of the cost than with the present system. However, the savings from the PLoS model are so substantial (only 15% of the revenue that goes into scholarly journal publishing at present, by Walters' calculations), that even the large research university saves about half its journal costs with this model. The other model Walters looked at assumed maintenance of current revenue for publishers; with this model, most institutions would still enjoy savings by Walters' calculations, however the total cost would increase for the large research university library.
My focus is transforming the scholarly publishing system, towards a system that responds to the needs of scholars for Information rather than the needs of investors for profits. I will not explore the model which projects current revenue for publishers, but rather focus on the potential for a more affordable future for scholarly journal publishing.
Figure 7: comparison of current costs per article in U.S. $
Figure 7 compares current library spend per article with several open access per-article costs. The estimate of $4,326 current library spend per article is calculated on the basis of the $5.8 billion estimated annual academic library spend per article, divided by the estimated 1,350,000 peer-reviewed articles per year calculated by Björk, Roosr and Laurie (2008) for the 23,700 journals listed in Urlich's as of 2008. This amount is contrasted with several current per-article costs for open access journals, as discussed above. The costs on a per-article basis for many fully open access journals are considerably less than the current library spend. Elsevier's (2012) Cell Press, a hybrid "open access" choice (technically a "sponsored article" choice, not really full open access), is an outlier with a cost that is higher than the current average library spend.
Table 1: Global costs and library cost savings with transition to open access
|Cost per article
|Global cost 1.35 million peer-reviewed articles ($ millions U.S.)
|Global library cost savings ($ millions U.S.)
|Global library cost savings in %
|Open Journal Systems
|Hindawi Economics Research International
|PLos ONE / Nature Scientific Reports
|PLoS Biology
|Current library spend / article
|Cell Press
Table one illustrates that, given realistic average per-article costs, academic libraries, by working together globally, could fully fund the scholarly peer-reviewed journal system – and save money, too. The columns illustrate the essential point about cost per article being a key metric to assess the affordability of the system. At the Open Journal Systems average cost per article of $188, the total cost globally would be $253 million. Academic libraries could fund this amount from current budgets and still achieve a global cost savings of $5.5 billion annually, or 96% less than current spend. This largely scholar-led system would be by far the most cost-effective means of transitioning to open access.
The $400 fee of Hindawi's Economics Research International shows that highly significant cost savings are compatible with cost-efficient for-profit publishing.
At the PLoS ONE (or Nature Scientific Reports) average cost of $1,350, cost savings would be about 70% with a global transition. At the PLoS Biology rate of $2,900 per article, the total cost to academic libraries would be $3.9 billion, a cost savings of $1.9 billion annually, or 33% less than current spend. On the other hand, if the average cost were the Elsevier – Cell Press fee of $5,000 per article, this would add close to one billion dollars in library spending, or a 16% increase in global library spending on scholarly journals.
This table illustrates the importance of cost per article as a key metric in transitioning to an affordable open access scholarly publishing system. Libraries could support a largely scholar-led journal publishing system at a very small fraction of current spend, as illustrated by the Open Journal Systems average cost of $188 per article. Significant cost savings could be achieved at rates currently charged by for-profit Hindawi, or the not-for-profit Public Library of Science. However, average costs in the $5,000 range as currently charged by Elsevier's Cell Press would increase the cost of the system as a whole.
Cost per book
In 2008, Greco and Wharton recommended an open access model for university presses, suggesting an approach similar to article processing fees, with a $250 submission fee, an additional peer review fee of $250 to send books successful at the submission stage out for peer review, and another approximately $10,000 or so for final typesetting, copy editing, and so forth, for a total of approximately $10,500. An interviewee (Morrison, 2012) with decades of experience in university press monograph publishing provided me with a ballpark first copy cost estimate for an electronic open access monograph of $15,000.
Pinter (2011), a publisher with decades of experience and founder of Bloomsbury Academic Press, calls for libraries, publishers and consortia to work together to fund open access monographs, citing a first copy cost of $10,000. Pinter's model assumes that publishers would earn additional revenue streams, through sales of print on demand or specially formatted e-books.
If cost savings from a flip to open access at an average rate of $1,500 per article were redirected to fund monograph publishing, this would provide up to $3.8 billion annually to fund open access monographs. This amount would be enough to pay for the creation of 250,000 open access monographs per year. That would be a quarter of a million more monographs available to everyone, everywhere, added every year. I see libraries as playing an essential role in hosting and preserving these monographs, and ensuring that they are both findable and accessible on a long-term basis. This would be a marked contrast with the current situation where each scholarly monograph sells on average 400 copies.
Issues and challenges with switching to production-based economics
Many of the issues and challenges with respect to journal articles are described by Shieber (2009). Open access journals face an inequitable situation, with the majority of library budgets being committed to subscriptions journals. Hybrid journals are problematic for libraries due to double-dipping, that is, journals charging both article processing fees and for subscriptions. There is a need to establish a suitable cap for open access article processing fees, although Shieber suggests it may be more appropriate to establish caps by author rather than by the article. Beall (2011) has written about the problem of what he calls predatory open access publishers. That is, the article processing fee approach to open access publishing has opened a door for new publishers, including some that appear to be running outright scams, collecting money for article processing fees without actually conducting peer review. In addition, some have been known to use unethical business practices, such as listing people on their Editorial Boards unbeknownst to the person listed and spamming potential authors and reviewers (2). Funding agencies are supportive of open access; many have policies requiring open access to the results of research that they fund. Funder generosity in allowing funds to be used to support open access publishing is welcome, however over-generosity could be problematic. For example, if a funder committed to paying open access article processing fees up to $3,000, it is likely that many publishers would set their fees accordingly. Corporate publishers would have a duty to their shareholders to adjust fees accordingly, as charging less would result in less than optimal profits to the shareholders. The result could easily be a standard open access article processing fee that would be higher than what is actually necessary for publishing. This would tend to result in a systemic increase in costs, and would impact authors and other funding agencies less able to match the payment. For this reason, I advocate that funding agencies adopt one of the following policies:
• Allow grantees to use funds for dissemination of research without specifying how funds are to be used. This gives the grantee an incentive to look for affordable alternatives to keep other funds free for other purposes.
• Cap the eligible fee for open access article processing at an affordable amount. For example, PLoS ONE has shown that it is possible for a San Francisco-based professional publisher to produce peer-reviewed articles at $1,350 per article.
• Create funds to subsidize journal publishing along the lines of Canada's Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council's Aid to Scholarly Journals program.
Perhaps the biggest opportunity or challenge is the need for collective action. Taylor, Morrison, Owen, Vézina, and Waller (2011), in a survey of libraries and university presses that asked about economic models for support for open access publishing, found that the model most likely to be supported (and not opposed by any respondents) was a library consortial approach.
Collective action: immanent to the online environment?
The business models for scholarly communication in print format are very familiar and easy to understand. Scholarly articles are bundled into journals and sold as annual subscriptions. Scholarly monographs are sold by the copy. In both cases, the copy belongs to the purchaser, who is free to keep, lend, sell, or give away the copy. A copy can only be read by one reader at a time. If the library's copy of the book is on loan, the would-be reader either has to wait for the library's copy or find another one. The university library retains copies of both books and journals and assumes responsibility for preservation.
Scholarly communications (journals, books, and emerging formats) in the online environment come with a different set of opportunities and challenges. The default "purchase" has changed from sale to leasing or licensing, increasing the danger of Information enclosure discussed in chapter two. Rather than selling subscriptions to individual journal or book titles, it is easy to sell bundles, and many publishers do. One example is the "big deal" of for-profit STM journal publishers which, as we saw in chapter two, is capturing a disproportionate share of the money available for scholarly communication and is a major factor in the serials crisis. The not-for-profit sector has reacted and created aggregations of its own, such as Project Muse. Aggregations can involve journals of many publishers, and even many different types of publishers, for example the general journal packages sold by companies like EBSCO and ProQuest.
The tendency towards aggregation is happening on the purchasing as well as the sales sides. A library can purchase a sitewide license to a bundle of journals for access by any student, faculty or staff member, whether on or offsite. This can impact the individual subscriptions of a publisher, and even the memberships of a not-for-profit society publisher that has traditionally considered receiving a copy of the publication as a membership benefit. A whole class can download and read an article or book at the same time. A library consortia can purchase a copy of a book, journal, or package, for access by students, faculty and staff at every research library in a country. Library consortia occasionally make purchases at an international level, coordinated by The International Coalition of Library Consortia. While a few publishers have flourished in this environment, others are struggling to figure out the economics for survival. Obviously, selling one copy of an ebook for sharing by the whole world at a price that made sense for a single print copy just won't work. There are many successful models for selling scholarly communication in electronic format, such as differential pricing based on size and/or type of an institution, whether measured by Carnegie classification or student numbers. However, if there are no funds left in library budgets after paying for the big deals of the large STM publishers, other publishers may face cancellations.
These dual tendencies towards aggregation on the sales and purchasing sides suggest an immanent potential of scholarly Information in the online environment towards something like ubiquitous or open access. With open access, one copy can be placed online for access to anyone, anywhere with an internet connection. As Sutton (2011) expresses it, free may be inevitable for scholarly communication. It is the process of enclosure that initially takes effort and energy, developing the paradigm of intellectual property and means of enclosure such as digital rights management.
It appears as though the tendency towards aggregation by both publishers and libraries is converging towards open access. If all of the works of a publisher, the "big deal" are available to researchers at every university in a country, this may seem similar to open access, and occasionally people will refer to this as open access.
Elsevier (2011) even has a term for this: universal access. The basic idea is that if everyone who can afford to subscribe or pay-per-view to Elsevier's resources does, and this is supplemented by a little bit of charitable access, then everyone has access. On the surface, this sounds somewhat plausible. At many libraries, the online environment has meant greatly expanded access. Many a small library has greatly expanded their journal offerings in the online environment.
The major problem with this is who owns the Information. Elsevier is a corporation, an organization with a mission of maximizing profits to shareholders. As long as Elsevier continues a policy of full copyright transfer by authors, Elsevier is free to define the payment terms of its universal access. That is, everyone can have access – provided that they are willing to pay on Elsevier's terms. Or, Elsevier could abandon this approach altogether in favor of another seen as more profitable. If Elsevier is generally selling sitewide licenses to libraries rather than pay-per-view, it is much more likely because this is how Elsevier reaps the most financial benefit, not because pay-per-view is less compatible with universal access. As discussed in chapter two, in 2010 Elsevier made £724m ($1.1 billion) on revenues of £2 billion. What if a wealthy country or group of countries (or even a group of oligarchs) were to offer Elsevier £3 billion annually to provide them with exclusive access to the works owned by Elsevier?
My perspective is that commercial "universal access" is problematic at best, and it makes much more sense to build a knowledge commons accessible to all. There may well be a role for the commercial sector here, but the role should not be that of ownership of the scholarly works.
Collaborative approaches
Scholars, libraries, publishers, and consortia are involved in a wide variety of collaborative efforts to transition scholarly communication. Following are just a few examples designed to illustrate the breadth and scope of these initiatives. RePEC (2011), Research Papers in Economics, describes itself as "a collaborative effort of hundreds of volunteers in 75 countries to enhance the dissemination of research in economics". The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is a project led by philosophy scholars, who created their own high quality subject encyclopedia, with entries invited by subject experts and kept up to date. SEP has been working towards creating an endowment to fund ongoing open access, assisted by The International Coalition of Library Consortia (2005), among others.
Libraries have formed a Compact on Open Access Publishing Equity (2011), as a means of beginning to address the problem of supporting open access while library budgets are still tied up in subscriptions. The Synergies (2011) project has brought together libraries and university presses across Canada to develop a common platform and support for online hosting of Canadian academic journals, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.
A group of open access publishers has formed an association called the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA). BioOne and Project Euclid are cooperative societies whose publisher members benefit from the economies of scale made possible by working together, as described by Crow (2006). Both BioOne and Project Euclid feature a mix of fully open access journals and publishers, subscription-based journals, and in-between models such as journals that make back issues freely available.
The arXiv initiative, developed and much used by researchers in physics, mathematics, and several other disciplines, is hosted by Cornell University Library, has 18 mirror sites around the world, and is presently in the process of finessing a sustainability strategy involving support by the institutions that are the heaviest users of arXiv. As of October 2011, 129 institutions from 16 countries had pledged support of $382,000 in contributions for 2011 (arXiv 2011). arXiv hopes to eventually receive support from the 200 institutions around the world that are the heaviest users of the service.
SCOAP3, the Sponsoring Consortium for Open Access Publishing in Particle Physics, is a global collaboration designed to transition library subscriptions in high energy physics to open access. As of December 2011, SCOAP3 has obtained sufficient library commitments for this task, and is in a tendering process with publishers.
OAPEN (2011) describes itself as
a collaborative initiative to develop and implement a sustainable Open Access publication model for academic books in the Humanities and Social Sciences. The OAPEN Library aims to improve the visibility and usability of high quality academic research by aggregating peer reviewed Open Access publications from across Europe.
OAPEN is only one of a number of European-union wide cooperative open access
Houghton and colleagues have conducted major macroeconomic analysis of the potential for transition from subscriptions to open access at the country level, first in the U.K. (Houghton et al, 2009a), and more recently in the Netherlands (Houghton et al, 2009b), and Denmark (Christoffersen, 2009), indicating significant cost savings from a transition to open access in all countries studied. These studies included a broad range of factors involved in scholarly communication, including unpaid activities such as reading and reviewing. The significance of these studies is that they illustrate the financial advantage of even a unilateral move by one country to open access, including countries such as the U.K. where a favorable balance of trade is enjoyed due to high profits of local publishers. The amount of savings varied with the method of providing open access, with the gold approach or open access publishing providing the smallest savings, green or self-archiving greater savings, and the greatest savings were anticipated with a more radical transition of the whole scholarly publishing system to one involving publishing through institutional repositories with a peer-review overlay.
One radical transition: rise of the megajournal
We are beginning to see signs of a more radical transition, away from the format of print. What is most surprising about this transition is that it is taking so long. Odlyzko predicted the impending demise of the journal as long ago as 1994.
One striking shift in scholarly publishing of particular importance to the economics of scholarly publishing is the rise of the megajournal. PLoS pioneered this approach with PLoS ONE in 2006. Rather than filtering articles for scope or interest to readers, a practice that makes sense when journals are issued in print and so must be bundled into issues of a predictable size, PLoS ONE accepts all sound science, all articles that pass peer review, in any discipline. This approach introduces important efficiencies into scholarly publication. Generally, the practice has been for authors to submit a paper to first one journal, then another if rejected by the first journal, sometimes for several rounds. Each rejection is costly for the rejecting journal, and adds overall to the time of scholarly editors and reviewers, as many articles end up being reviewed more than once. It is likely the efficiencies of PLoS ONE that have made the $1,350 article processing fee (in contrast with the PLoS Biology fee of $2,900) a possibility. In 2010, PLoS ONE became the world's largest journal, publishing close to 2007 articles that year (Morrison 2011c). In 2011, PLoS ONE doubled its output, publishing close to 14,000 articles. One of every 60 articles indexed in PubMed is now a PLoS ONE article. PLoS ONE also appears to have inspired a number of new megajournals (Konkiel, 2011). Size is only one of the innovations of PLoS ONE, which also features post-publication peer review and article-level metrics.
Figure 8 Number of articles published in PLoS ONE per year, 2006 – 2011.
Source: Morrison (2004-) The dramatic growth of open access.
Considerations for the developing world
Authors in the developing world are expected to publish in the top international journals; from an economics perspective, this is not optimal for the developing world, as discussed by Merrett (2006). Local publishing would be more affordable, as it would allow scholars and universities to take advantage of a lower cost of living. Local publishing would also provide academic leadership and business opportunities for the developing countries. Local journals would also be more receptive to research on topics of local interest, such as illnesses that are common in the developing world but rare in the developed world. For those developing world authors who do wish to publish in international journals, the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications (INASP) has created a program called AuthorAID, which helps developing country writers with their writing.
There is more than enough revenue to fund an open access scholarly publishing system. Transitioning the major source of support for scholarly journal publishing, library journal subscriptions, will be key to a successful transition. A prudent transition seeking affordable scholarly journal publishing has the potential to provide academic libraries with significant savings, which could fund redistribution of economic support for scholarly publishing, particularly to reinvest in scholarly monograph publishing. A key metric in understanding affordability in scholarly publishing in an open access environment is the cost per article or cost per book. Cooperative solutions have been emerging in scholarly publishing for some time, and will be important in the transition to full open access. The most cost-effective approach to the transition will involve a more radical transition away from the print format. There signs that such a transition is beginning, with the rise of the megajournal pioneered by PLoS ONE.
1 As of 2011, by my calculations Ulrich's lists approximately 26,000 active, academic / scholarly journals (Appendix C), approximately a 10% increase over 2006. Assuming that there is no difference in the average number of articles published per journal, an estimate of just under 1.5 million peer reviewed articles published per year seems reasonable. Ulrich's list contains predominantly English-language titles, and may reflect a western bias. For example, Chinese academic journals are likely underrepresented in Ulrich's. According to Jie (2010): "China has almost 9,500 academic publications that generate about 2.5 million papers per year, according to Shen's figures. But there are 30 million teachers, lecturers, students, technicians and researchers seeking publication". It is assumed that this is of limited relevance to the present exercise, as any bias in Ulrich's coverage is likely matched by a bias in purchasing. That is, this analysis is predominantly a western-based, developed world analysis.
2. While I consider Beall's list a valuable service, I would like to note that I do not agree with his assessments of all the publishers listed. For example, Beall places Medknow Publications on a suspect list; Medknow's publication program began with long-established and highly regarded peer-reviewed scholarly journals from India. My comments can be found in Morrison (2011b).


text:
Zak's Furniture Delivers to Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina and Surrounding Areas
This double reclining love seat from the Cruise Control collection is sure to become a household favorite. A detailed cushion back, generous seat depth and over stuffed armrests confirm that the love seat is brimming with comfort and warm, contemporary appeal. With its high density attached cushion back and seat, this double reclining love seat will easily become your destination of choice to repose after a long day. An exterior handle is featured to easily recline when ready, so kicking up your feet and getting comfy is no problem at all. No home should be without the Cruise Control loveseat.
The Latitudes - Cruise Control Double Reclining Love Seat by Flexsteel at Zak's Fine Furniture in the Tri-Cities - Johnson City and Bristol Tennessee area. Product availability may vary. Contact us for the most current availability on this product.
Thanks to a nifty counter-balanced linkage system, you can stop your reclining chair or sofa back at any and every angle. It's truly the best option for customizing your comfort to your body, this feature is available on both manual and power recliners.
Don't be fooled by the technical jargon- Blue Steel and Dualflex springs are the real deal. The manufacturer's innovative, time-tested Blue Steel springs and the updated Dualflex system are made of heavy-duty materials and never need retying or replacing. If you don't believe it, the spring system can be replaced by the manufacturer at any time thanks to a lifetime warranty.
Recycled NuvoLeather™ leathers are colored and processed to have the best look and feel. With a lower percentage of actual leather, NuvoLeather is technically a performance fabric, which means it has the weight and durability of leather with a cleanable surface that's ideal for active families with small children or pets.
Unlike recliners that are built with a two- or three-piece seat and leg rest cushion, this recliner has a single chaise cushion that extends from the seat to the feet. This style offers a fuller comfort and support for your legs, as well as eliminating the open gap that toddlers can get fingers or toys stuck in.
Every home needs furniture that can stylize and standardize comfort. That's where Latitudes - Cruise Control comes in. This reclining and power reclining upholstery collection offers an abundance of fashion and function with its attached high density cushions, over-stuffed pillow arms, and handsome contrast stitching. Create a cozy seating space with the rocker recliner, love seat, and sofa for a room that will easily become your destination of choice after a long day. Use the exterior or power releases and kick up those feet for even more relaxation. Cruise Control is available in luxurious leather upholstery that is both soft and supple. Unmatched style, comfort, durability, and function can be all yours when you include Cruise Control in your home.*Inquire with your retailer if special order fabric and leather options are available.
The Latitudes - Cruise Control collection is a great option if you are looking for Casual furniture in the Tri-Cities - Johnson City and Bristol Tennessee area.
These images are representative of this group as a whole and may differ from this item.
View other items in the Latitudes - Cruise Control collection available from Zak's Fine Furniture in the Tri-Cities - Johnson City and Bristol Tennessee area.
This item has been tagged as: Sectional with Recliner, Recliner Sectional, Reclining Sectional, Seating, Couches, Couch, Sofa, Reclining Home Theater Furniture, Living Room Furniture, Accent Furniture, Reclining Love Seat, Loveseat Recliner, Reclining Couch, Reclining Sofa, Couch with Recliner, Sofa with Recliner, Motion Furniture, Moving Furniture, Living Room Furniture, Family Room Furniture, Great Room Furniture, Den Furniture, Home Furnishing
Zak's Fine Furniture features a great selection of living room, bedroom, dining room, home office, entertainment, accent, furniture, and mattresses, and can help you with your home design and decorating. View recent additions to our online furniture gallery. Zak's Fine Furniture offers great quality furniture, at a low price to the Tri-Cities Tennessee/Virginia area including Johnson City, Bristol, TN/VA, as well as Blountville, Bluff City, Piney Flats, Elizabethton, Watauga, Unicoi, Jonesborough, Boones Creek, Midway, Flourville, Oak Grove, Summersville, Greeneville, Church Hill area.
Information Accuracy - We have taken great care to provide you with information that is accurate and useful. Please notify us if you find an error, and we will do our best to correct it. We ask that you contact us directly and visit our stores to confirm information about pricing, color, features, dimensions, availability and special order lead times.
Online Pricing - While we strive for accuracy, in the event of a price discrepancy between our website and our showroom, the showroom pricing will be deemed accurate. The prices listed are for the configurations as shown. Changes to finish, color, grade, fabric or leather may lead to price changes. We reserve the right to cancel any sale at anytime for any reason.
4524 North Roan Street
Johnson City, TN 37615
111 Pickens Bridge Road
Nothing on this page may be copied or reproduced without explicit permission.
Drag anItem Here
To start a new blank room plan, enter the desired room dimensions below and click Create Room.
To request a new password, enter your username or e-mail address and click submit. A new password will automatically be emailed to you.
If you are still having trouble logging on after receiving your new password, please email email@example.com

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thanks to everyone who entered an illustration for Character Challenge 100, which asked you to pick your single favorite creation with HeroMachine. I've collected all of the entries into one huge poll, and now the job is yours — pick your top ten favorite images! The top five vote-getters as of midnight Sunday will each receive a Jeff-drawn version of their submission.
I've left off the name of the creator to be as fair as possible. You can click on any image to see it at a much larger size in a new tab or window.
If your entry has something wrong with it (like I didn't title it correctly), please let me know. If you submitted an entry but don't see it here, you probably either didn't title or link it correctly. If I couldn't tell what the character name, or your name, was by looking at the file name, it was disqualified.
Good luck everyone! Please feel free to speak up in the comments to discuss your favorites. I'm really proud of the quality of work you all have put together for this centennial edition of the Character Challenges.


text:
- Filed Under
During the semester, it can be easy for college students to lose touch with what is going on around them.
We are constantly being pulled in a hundred different directions - exams, papers, club meetings, practice, working out, applying for internships, attempting to have a social life. ? The list goes on.
It seems like we almost never have time to stop, take a minute to breathe and look around. Maybe if we did, we would see that not everything is as rosy as it seems. ...


text:
Cheap Home Decor: Crafting with Paper
Bonus: Get our newsletter & special offers for free. We will not share or sell your email address. View our Privacy Policy
Lavender Sachet Hanger
We are adding the craft to your Craft Projects.
The project was added to your Craft Projects.
Click here to view your Craft Projects.
Leave your clothes smelling nice and refreshing with this Lavender Sachet Hanger from Savannah Starr. Since it's made from a clothes hanger, this project will hang easily in your closet and will leave your clothes and bedroom smelling nice and refreshing!
- Plastic hanger
- Aleene's Tacky Double Stick Sheets
- Aleene's Original Tacky Glue
- Scissors
- Fabric – organdy and black lace
- Dried lavender – approximately ½ cup per hanger
- Non-stick crafting surface
- Ribbon – sheer to complement lace and organdy.
- Optional: Perfect Crafting Powder
Cut two pieces of organdy to roughly 1" larger than hanger.
Cut Tacky sheets into strips and apply to both sides of hanger.
Place organdy on non-stick work surface.
Remove the paper backing from one side of hanger and place adhesive onto organdy.
Use scissors to cut organdy even with edge of hanger.
Place hanger on work surface organdy side down.
Sprinkle ½ cup lavender on organdy.
Remove the paper backing from remaining side of hanger and press second piece of organdy onto adhesive on hanger. Use scissors to cut organdy even with edge of hanger.
Cut lace design from lace fabric. Determine desired placement. (I like to hang my lace pieces over the edge of the hanger.)
Apply Tacky glue to back of lace wherever it touches the hanger. Let dry. Repeat on other side if desired.
Note: because you are using the Tacky Double Stick Sheets with the organdy, you may still feel some stickiness through the thin fabric. If you do, you can use Perfect Crafting Powder and dab it over the sticky areas.
- Tie bow to neck of hanger.
Tags / Related Topics
Your Recently Viewed Projects
Images from other crafters
Love these projects? Get MORE delivered to your Inbox – FREE Click Here!
Something worth saving?
- SAVE all your favorite crafts
- ADD personal notes
- QUICKLY reference your crafts
Free eBooks
- 12 Easy DIY Projects
- 14 Free Crochet Patterns for Babies and Toddlers
- 23 Fabulous Picnic Craft Ideas + Restaurant Copycat Recipes
- 25 Easy to Make Homemade Jewelry Crafts
- Family Fun Crafts: 16 Craft Ideas for Kids
- Garden Crafts
- How To Make Tie Dye Shirts, Decor & More: 18 Tie Dye Patterns
- Learn How to Knit for Beginners: 27 Easy Knitting Patterns
- The Best Blogger Craft Ideas 2015: Home Decor Ideas, DIY Jewelry, Easy Crochet Patterns and More


text: Kate Hudson for Ann Taylor, Kate Bosworth Launching Denim, Mickey Drexler Doesn't Like Malls: Fashion News January 18, 2012 Ann Taylor Taps Kate Hudson, Miuccia Prada Takes It Back, Mickey Drexler Doesn't Like Malls — and More By Christina Pérez Jan 18 2012 br> Kate Hudson is the new face of Ann Taylor. [Fashion Foie Gras] br> Andrea Linett has joined Michael Kors as the new global creative director. [Daily Front Row] br> Miuccia Prada says her quote about the Met exhibit was taken out of context. [Fashionista] br> Mickey Drexler isn't crazy about shopping malls. [Lucky] br> The Spring 2012 nail colors from Butter London have arrived. [Racked] br> Miranda Kerr celebrates baby Flynn's first birthday. [People] br> Kate Bosworth and Cher Coulter are launching a denim line. [Stylecaster] br> Photo: WWD


text:
November 26, 2015
GRAND JUNCTION, Colo. Grand Junction boys (4) and girls (3) each get first round byes in the 5A tournament, while the Fruita Monument girls (12) sneak in as the third and final Western Slop 5A teams.
GJHS boys head coach Dutch Johnson stopped by the studio to talk about being given a four seed in a tough bracket for the second straight year.
For the full 4A/5A brackets, visit the link under the photo to the right.
Click Here to access the online Public Inspection File
Viewers with disabilities can get assistance accessing this station's FCC Public Inspection File by contacting the station with the information listed below. Questions or concerns relating to the accessibility of the FCC's online public file system should be directed to the FCC at 888-225-5322, 888-835-5322 (TTY), or email@example.com.


text:
Note: Michael Franti & Spearhead have canceled their Wanderlust appearance due to Franti's being hospitalized for emergency appendectomy. He is expected to be released soon, but will miss several upcoming shows, his publicist reported Friday.
If there's one artist that's the perfect match for Wanderlust, it would have to be Michael Franti and Spearhead, headlining on Saturday night.
Franti, who just started a tour with Counting Crows and Augustana, is taking a day off that tour to do Wanderlust. And he'll definitely be taking advantage of the yoga classes.
"I've been practicing yoga since the fall of 2001," Franti said in a recent interview. "It's something that's really a big part of my life. Everywhere that I am on tour I practice yoga. If I don't find a class somewhere, I just put my mat down somewhere backstage and practice."
Franti called the yoga lineup at Wanderlust incredible.
"The best yoga teachers in the country are going to be there," he said.
But Franti is there just as much for his fans and the music. Sweetening his resume this year is his fling with the Billboard charts, his most successful since launching Spearhead in 1994. The single "Say Hey (I Love You)" has been making the rounds on Top 40 radio this year, and the album it came from, "All Rebel Rockers," was the highest charting album of his career on the Billboard 200 albums chart.
The song, about staying positive in tough times by staying close to family and friends, not only has an uplifting message, but a beat you can dance to.
"I would be lying if I wouldn't say I'm flattered to have a song played on Top 40 stations," Franti said. "I grew up listening to Top 40. It's the dream of every artist to have your music embraced that way. It's not like we did something radically different to get this song there, we just made the music we always did. It's thrilling for me. I heard it at a baseball game a couple weeks ago, I heard it on the airplane flying back from England (sandwiched between Justin Timberlake and Miley Cyrus)."
Franti's newest music is a hybrid of hip-hop, roots rock and funk, but he's moved further from the straightforward hip-hop of his early career, and he's one of few modern black artists these days making music with a real band.
"About 10 years ago, when downloading really started to affect the record sales, I said to the band, 'we've got to be a group that can make a living doing music, despite radio play, despite MTV, and take it to the fans by becoming the best live band that we can be,'" Franti said. "It helped us develop a fan base that wanted to hear music that was more than just a drum machine and a sampler. They wanted to hear somebody with a guitar stand up there and sing a song from their heart, and a band that could get people dancing, but also have songs that you can sing along to."
And if people are singing along, they're probably hearing some of Franti's words.
"Really, my message is that I want people to remain positive no matter what situation we're in, and I want people to participate, whether it's by voting, or contributing time at your kid's school, or making a community garden, or anything that helps contribute to the world we're living in.
"I really believe in the concept that it takes everybody -- Republicans, Democrats, the ideas of the grass roots, the resources of the corporate world and the cooperation of governments to get things done in the world we live in today."
And even with his own personal evolution, Franti's got hip-hop in his blood.
"When you look today and you see how few black people there are who are playing instruments, to me it's kind of sad in a way, but I understand it. People don't have access to instruments they once did, schools don't teach music, and there was a generation of families that taught music to their children that was lost. When that generation was lost, those kids picked up turntables in their parents' basements. Hip-hop was born. It's still equally as creative. I'm all for that, too."


text:
|Back to Home > Content > Journalism Advice > Pitching Spanish-Language Women's Mags
Pitching Spanish-Language Women's Mags
If you can report and write en Español, these magazines want to hear pitches with a global perspective- December 8, 2009
As the Hispanic population in the United States grows rapidly, so does its purchasing power. There will be 50 million Hispanics in the U.S. by next year -- that's 16 percent of the U.S. population, according to Magazine Publishers of America. By 2011, the buying power of Hispanics is projected to reach $1.2 trillion, MPA says. Hispanics in the U.S. are buying more of everything -- including magazines. An estimated 75 percent of Hispanic adults read around 10 magazine issues a month and even prefer magazines more than any other form of media.
As a result, the number and circulation of Spanish-language magazines has spiked. The demand has significantly boosted sales of Spanish-language editions of U.S. women's magazines, where readership has been one of the highest in the Spanish-language magazine market. For freelancers who can report and write in Spanish, this means greater opportunities to influence a large and important audience....
The How to Pitch series is worth its weight in gold. In just the first month I'd already benefited enough to consider the cost of joining well worth it. -- Gaen Murphree
AvantGuild benefits give you access to:
- Premium content, including our How to Pitch Guides, an indispensable tool for freelance writers. view sample >
- Savings of up to $35 per class on mediabistro.com courses and seminars.
- Insurance discounts for freelancers and small businesses, including medical, dental, auto and home.
- Lots of other professional discounts, including ZipCar (a $50 value) and your choice of magazine subscriptions (a $10 value).
... and much more! View all benefits or Sign up now!


text:
Usually, when a veteran starter is away, his backup relishes an opportunity to fill in and maybe steal his job. Not so with Donald Penn's backup Demar Dotson. In a story by Anwar Richardson on TBO.com, here's what the Bucs backup left tackle, who was undrafted in'09, had to say after the team's Monday morning mini camp session:
"I'm not saying I'm a good left tackle. I don't even know if I'm a starting left tackle or not at this moment. If you ask me, I'm not. I'm working at it, taking these reps while Penn is away and I look forward to Penn getting here soon and protecting Josh's blindside."
At leas the apparently humble and honest Dotson is relishing his opportunity to become a more versatile player. "At McDonald's, if all you can do is work the grill, if you got somebody who can work the grill and the tables, you lose your job," Dotson said. "That's all I'm trying to do, come out here and be more flexible in whatever they ask me to do, whether it's right tackle, left tackle, backup, starting, tight end, whatever."
--Andy Benoit
For more NFL news, rumors and analysis, follow @cbssportsnfl on Twitter


text:
Welcome back to Stockhouse Member Sign In
Sign in with one of the following accounts.
Send my password
« back
Become a member today, It's free!
We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Use one of the following accounts.
Go Back...
15,000 @ $0.180
Just to recap on what I said...As stated in my last post...I am starting to believe that insiders or in this case (Jonathan More) continues to buy for the right reasons and not for the following reasons.
Quoted from my last post: I am having my doubts everyone...Alot of high risk stock venture companies; which their business is honestly selling shares/stocks operate this way...they legally manipulate investors by buying shares on the public market! Their initial investment is usually covered in days…the rest is an ongoing buying of existing or new investors which are deceived by thinking that someone internally must know something about the company which creates a frenzy or a hype on the market for others to buy into the story; which continue the cycle of growing revenue for the company.
Receive investor kits and email updates from Stockhouse and directly from these companies.


text: To make the most out of your window treatments, to make your quilts and throws be the center of any room, make a phone call to Carter Drapery. Since 1983, the business has served the Ashland area with its range of products after initially starting the business with window and bed covers. The home-operated business, owned by John and Nancy Carter, can both fabricate products and have things made using either its own lines of fabrics or goods supplied by its customers. Anything that requires quilting, we send out, John said. Top treatments, pillow shams, dust ruffles, duvt covers, blind products and table covers all are a part of what they fabricate. Blinds take an average of two to three weeks, and draperies take four to six weeks to be produced (including the time it takes to make measurements). The Carters also sell all Hunter Douglas products and install drapery using Kirsch and Graber hardware. When going to Carter Drapery, customers can count on not only years of experience they now see the second generation of renovations but personalized service and streamlined operations, as well. To find out more about how to take advantage of all Carter Drapery has to offer and pricing information, call John and Nancy today at 419-289-2530.


text:
Bulk group buy from B&H, costs me ~$5.50 AUD per 120 roll that way.
400H... its fine enough grained with good colour, but I find its not that sharp really.. that is to say I actually find it kind of unsharp. And it drops shadow details... black/dark hair on a model eg will have nothing and be one flat area of black.. even overexposed it craps out.. to the point 160S and 160C are faster.
Portra 400 sees into shadows.. not just in the same lighting as your exposure, but also below your exposure in darker lighting.. even pushed to 1600.


text:
With wireless charging being a cool feature on some of the newer Windows Phones, the Energizer Qi Inductive charger is the perfect accessory for you. When we unboxed the Energizer wireless charger, we found that the device was simple to setup with just finding a location for the charge plate and plugging it in. After placing our Nokia Lumia 920 on the plate, it instantly started to charge making it function as well as we had hoped.
The technology
A Qi charger essentially charges a device by using an electromagnetic field to generate the energy. The phone has a receiver to get the charge while the plate, usually called a base station, has the power transmitter. The Energizer charger has an area where the phone has to be to get the charge and a blue light on the charger lets you know you hit it.
Placing the Base Station
The charger base station is only the size of a book so finding a good place to put it is relatively easy. Initially it started out on my desk however being that it was a double charger, it made more sense to accessible to my wife. The Energizer Qi charger now sits in the TV room which allows us both to charge our phones while watching TV.
Is Wireless Charging Slower
While we did not sit and time the exact time from empty to full we decided to take a different approach to testing charge times. Instead of using a stop watch we decided to just use the charger and we are happy to say we did not notice a difference. Charging the Nokia Lumia 920 on the charger felt the same as
This device is pretty straight forward as you plug it in and place your Qi enabled phone on top of it. When the phone finishes charging you can move it or anytime in between. With the added benefit of being able to grab your phone when you need it and just place it back down to continue the charge the Energizer Qi inductive charger is the perfect accessory for your Windows Phone.


text:
A number of users have become concerned by an email they receive
inviting them to visit www.hungersite.com or www.thehungersite.com,
a website claiming to help feed hungry people around the world.
The emails often ask you to forward them to all your friends and colleagues.
The Hunger Site themselves say they have a strict policy against spam
and asks people not to forward these unsolicited messages. You can read
their statement at www.thehungersite.com/policyonspam.html.
Más información
© 1997 - 2015 Sophos Ltd. Todos los derechos reservados.