<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Public Science</title>
	<atom:link href="http://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 13 Sep 2011 13:59:48 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jon Israel</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/comment-page-1/#comment-1021</link>
		<dc:creator>Jon Israel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:21:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/#comment-1021</guid>
		<description>Very interesting piece. Could I ask you if the public expenditure figures for academic science R&amp;D and the private expenditures for academic science R&amp;D are available (brokendown) for the period between 1986 and 2007?  I am wondering if journal costs trail R&amp;D investment? Interesting indicator.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very interesting piece. Could I ask you if the public expenditure figures for academic science R&amp;D and the private expenditures for academic science R&amp;D are available (brokendown) for the period between 1986 and 2007?  I am wondering if journal costs trail R&amp;D investment? Interesting indicator.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gavin Baker</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/comment-page-1/#comment-976</link>
		<dc:creator>Gavin Baker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:47:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/#comment-976</guid>
		<description>Paul, thanks for the comment. If you look at the graph linked from the discussion of journal costs, you&#039;ll see the 227% figure applies equally to journal unit cost and total journal expenditures (among Association of Research Libraries member libraries). So that includes the cost of adding new subscriptions as well as inflation in renewed subscriptions. While it may be possible that each journal, in the same period, increased in size (by pages or by number of articles per issue), I haven&#039;t seen any data to indicate that or allow me to make a comparison. If you know of any, I&#039;d be interested to have a look at it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Paul, thanks for the comment. If you look at the graph linked from the discussion of journal costs, you&#8217;ll see the 227% figure applies equally to journal unit cost and total journal expenditures (among Association of Research Libraries member libraries). So that includes the cost of adding new subscriptions as well as inflation in renewed subscriptions. While it may be possible that each journal, in the same period, increased in size (by pages or by number of articles per issue), I haven&#8217;t seen any data to indicate that or allow me to make a comparison. If you know of any, I&#8217;d be interested to have a look at it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul Guinnessy</title>
		<link>http://scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/comment-page-1/#comment-973</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul Guinnessy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 21:09:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/01/public-science/#comment-973</guid>
		<description>regarding this statement in the above article &quot;From 1986 to 2002 journal costs rose 227 percent, more than triple the rate of inflation in the same period as measured by the Consumer Price Index.&quot;

That may be true but I think you will find that the number of papers published in the same time frame increased even more than 300%. Therefore its not a fair comparsion. Paper, delivery and peer review costs money.

What would be fairer would be to look at the cost per paper per journal from 1986 compared to 2002. I suspect you&#039;ll find that the cost remained below inflation for the majority of journals under that analysis, particularly those produced by societies.

Disclaimer: I am speaking in an individual capacity and not on the behalf of my employer, which has a division that produces journals.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>regarding this statement in the above article &#8220;From 1986 to 2002 journal costs rose 227 percent, more than triple the rate of inflation in the same period as measured by the Consumer Price Index.&#8221;</p>
<p>That may be true but I think you will find that the number of papers published in the same time frame increased even more than 300%. Therefore its not a fair comparsion. Paper, delivery and peer review costs money.</p>
<p>What would be fairer would be to look at the cost per paper per journal from 1986 compared to 2002. I suspect you&#8217;ll find that the cost remained below inflation for the majority of journals under that analysis, particularly those produced by societies.</p>
<p>Disclaimer: I am speaking in an individual capacity and not on the behalf of my employer, which has a division that produces journals.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
