Chris Surridge, of Public Library of Science (www.plos.org), sent the following thoughtful response to our comment on the Economist story about PLoS and who pays for it.

“The collective licence model is in effect the ‘conventional’ model for scientific publishing which has been in existence for decades, if not longer. Universities, research agencies, institutions and even individuals pay for access to a publishers output in the form of journal subscriptions and ‘site licences’. But that money has never been passed on to creators in the form of the scientists.

“Indeed the creators often have to pay to have their work published in the form of ‘stealth charges’ for the inclusion of colour figures or page charges. Those same agencies that pay for subscriptions and licences also pay the scientists to perform the research that later may or may not get reported. The scientists is more journeyman for hire than independent artist. If anything scientific papers could be considered a form of advertisement for scientists, demonstrating the quality of their work to attract future commissions.

“The goal of Open Access publishers such as PLoS is not to change who pays for the dissemination of scientific discoveries but to change the route by which it reaches the publisher and by so doing maximising its distribution. The general public pays for the vast majority of scientific research, funding “universities, research agencies and other institutions” through taxes and charitable donations, they have a right to expect that the product of that work is used as effectively as possible. To achieve that the scientific literature must be available to any interested party, not just those wealthy enough to afford a publisher’s licence.”

Surridge’s thoughtful explanation for why PLoS bills its authors so much advances the discussion on the rapidly evolving norms of online publishing. His first point is that collectives only work for publishers. Actually well-run collectives around the world often mandate that at least 50% of their payment go to creators, including academic creators. Given the presumably greater efficiencies of online publishing, a collective could probably pay an even larger share to reward and stimulate creativity, and still deliver enough to PLoS-type publishers to cover their overheads.

Surridge’s second point is that taxpayer-supported research should be available free to all. It’s an attractive idea. But universities are taxpayer-supported too, and they won’t let our kids in free. There’s a limit to what subsidy culture can sustain. It’s at least as reasonable that the costs of PLoS should be borne by the institutions that benefit from it rather than by the scholars whom it depends on for its existence.