Rob JohnsonDec 1, 2022
The slides and data from my interactive session yesterday at #Munin2022 on Open Research Europe are now available on Zenodo. Take a look to see what the Munin delegates think about economics and equity in the future development of ORE: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7385351
Economics and Equity in the Development of Open Research Europe - Munin conference presentation

Open Research Europe (ORE) is the open access peer-reviewed publishing platform offered by the European Commission as an optional service to Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe beneficiaries at no cost to them. The platform enables researchers to publish open access without paying out of their research budgets and while complying with their open access obligations. These are the outputs from an interactive session run by Rob Johnson at the 17th Munin Conference on 30 November 2022 to gather delegates' feedback on the future operationalisation of Open Research Europe as a collective publishing enterprise. These outputs supplement the following paper and report: Johnson, R. (2022). Economics and equity in the development of Open Research Europe. Septentrio Conference Series, (1). https://doi.org/10.7557/5.6634 ohnson, R. (2020). Operationalising Open Research Europe as a collective publishing enterprise. European Commission Directorate-General for Research and Innovation, LU https://doi.org/10.2777/061886  

Zenodo
Show threadBianca KramerDec 1, 2022

@rschrobUK

Really liked the interactive format!

For the question shown here: I do wonder about the assumption that transitioning to a not-for-profit provider and moving to an open-source platform necessarily will cost more money? (compared to staying with a commercial provider on a proprietary platform)

Show threadRob JohnsonDec 1, 2022
@MsPhelps good question, but as someone (who had obviously read my public report carefully) observed yesterday, is the current commercial provider making any money from it…?
Show threadNemo_bis 🌈Dec 1, 2022

@rschrobUK How are the profit margins of the current provider relevant? An #opensource provider will give better value for money because it's inherently more efficient than proprietary software. When considering how to let more authors publish without APC or have a better experience, the proper comparison is not how much more money the current provider would need but how much money it takes in the other venues where it already happens.

@MsPhelps

Show threadRob JohnsonDec 1, 2022
@nemobis @MsPhelps I think it’s more nuanced than that. A commercial provider might choose to sustain short-term losses that would be unacceptable to a non-profit (in expectation of this leading to future profits) for example. And what is the evidence that open source is inherently more efficient? The market is not always bad, and state or community solutions are not always good. It all depends on context.
Show threadNemo_bis 🌈Dec 1, 2022
@rschrobUK There's plenty of evidence, the European Commission has published some too. Opensource is not the opposite of commercial, market or profit.
@MsPhelps
Show threadRob JohnsonDec 1, 2022
@nemobis @MsPhelps I agree, it just depends on context and timeframes. Is it cheaper to licence a commercial product for 1 year or build your own? 3 years? 5 or 10 years? And what’s the cost of the uncertainty over when your OS solution will be ready? My report advocates for an open source solution and I think it’s the right goal in this context. But it’s not going to be cheaper in the short term, and nor do I think it’s CERTAIN to be better in the long term
Show threadNemo_bis 🌈Dec 1, 2022

@rschrobUK There are definitely uncertainties, but less than with proprietary lock-in, where variable recurring costs may grow at any rate and migration costs might become prohibitive.

In the study I don't understand why "costs" were fixed at 2000 € per article. Was that meant to be "list price for APC"?

I would expect a TCO analysis to include the one-time costs of migration and development of basic features, and variable costs (non-directly) proportional to the volumes.

@MsPhelps

Show threadRob JohnsonDec 1, 2022
@nemobis @MsPhelps yes, and that’s why I agree OS in better in this case, I’m just not convinced it’s better in EVERY case. Re costs, I also agree it needs a full costing and recommended this in the report, I just had to use a figure for planning purposes. Is €2,000 ‘right’? I don’t know. But I felt it was better to put some costs against my proposals than to dodge the question of costs completely (which would have been the easier option)
Show threadBianca KramerDec 1, 2022
@rschrobUK @nemobis One thing I think would be interesting to have is an assessment of how the projected/budgeted costs (both one-time costs of setup/development and per article costs) have worked out for the current ORE.
Show threadNemo_bis 🌈

@MsPhelps Agreed, but wasn't it supposed to be a fixed one-off payment disbursed at various deadlines, whatever the volumes and impact? So the "costs" don't really affect the price, but yes it would be interesting to see them. (Especially in terms of FTE: did some area of work turn out to take much more/less time than expected? And wall clock time: did some development just need more/less calendar days whatever the amount of money thrown at it?)

@rschrobUK

Dec 1, 2022 at 10:27pmWeb
Show threadBianca KramerDec 1, 2022
@nemobis @rschrobUK If I'm not wrong, there was a split between a fixed amount of money for one-time costs and a part by volume, to be paid only for the volume realized. So there's some basis for a post-mortem, but cost/price will remain hard to untangle.