Q: So why have you introduced Open Choice?
A: What we are saying is: "Look. It's not that we don't want to
change on principle; we've been advocating the traditional model simply
because we thought it was practical. But if you want to try open
access, and you can really organize yourselves in a different way, and
the money starts to come out of a different pot, we are happy to change
our internal procedures to accommodate you." [...]
Q: You have set the publication fee at $3,000 a paper. Critics
say this is too high, that authors won't pay that much; and so, perhaps
Springer is only going through the motions. Is Derk Haank really
serious about open access?
A: As always, I am very serious --$3,000 is a very competitive
price. Even open-access advocates would have to acknowledge that. The
Wellcome Trust report, for instance, estimated the true cost of
publishing a paper at more like $3,500.
Q: But if PLoS charges $1,500 and BioMed Central just $525, how can Open Choice be competitive?
A: Of course, we can't compete with heavily subsidized prices
from new initiatives. In reality, however, it is they who are not
competitive because they can't offer a brand name like Springer's.
(PS: When this interview first appeared, yesterday, it was not OA. Thanks to Information Today for making it OA today.) [Open Access News]
