IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/74-3-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften

Author

Listed:
  • Justus Haucap
  • Tobias Hartwich
  • André Uhde

Abstract

Prices for scientific, technical and medical (STM) journals have increased markedly over the last 20 years. Differences in pricing between commercial and non-commercial publishers cannot be explained solely by cost differentials. Research-oriented top journals rather enjoy market power, as they are positional goods, which libraries cannot substitute easily. Hence, strictly speaking, each top journal constitutes its own market. Market entry and substitution of expensive journals is difficult, however, because of the coordination problem between authors, referees, and libraries. In addition, libraries face switching costs (because of their tendency to hold complete serials), and demand is also rather inelastic due to the collective decision making processes which characterize libraries' demand decisions. Hence, top journals enjoy significant market power. An effective solution to discipline commercial publishers' pricing can result from a concerted action of science foundations and organizations which force their employees and researchers who receive funding to publish their papers and results for free or at low cost for others. Die Preise für wissenschaftliche, technische und medizinische (WTM) Fachzeitschriften sind in den letzten 20 Jahren dramatisch gestiegen. Die unterschiedlichen Preisentwicklungen zwischen kommerziellen und nichtkommerziellen Verlagen ist dabei nicht durch unterschiedliche Kostenentwicklungen zu erklären. Vielmehr haben die forschungsorientierten Top-Journale Marktmacht, da sie den Charakter positionaler Güter haben, die von Bibliotheken nur sehr schwer substituiert werden können, sodass streng genommen aufgrund der Einzigartigkeit jedes einzelnen Artikels jede Top-Zeitschrift einen eigenen Markt konstituiert. Top-Zeitschriften haben aus drei Gründen einen erheblichen Preissetzungsspielraum: Erstens sind der Markteintritt und die Ablösung teurer Top-Journale aufgrund des Koordinationsproblems zwischen Autoren, Gutachtern und Bibliotheken für neue Zeitschriften sehr schwierig. Zweitens haben Bibliotheken Wechselkosten (durch die Tendenz, vollständige Reihen zu beziehen). Drittens ist die Nachfrage auch aufgrund der kollektiven Entscheidungsfindung in Bibliotheken relativ unelastisch. Ein effektiver Ausweg, der die Verlage disziplinieren würde, könnte die konzertierte Aktion von Forschungsgemeinschaften sein, die ihre Mitarbeiter oder die von ihnen finanziell geförderten Wissenschaftler verpflichten, ihre Artikel und Forschungsergebnisse kostenfrei oder zumindest zu günstigen Konditionen zur Verfügung zu stellen.

Suggested Citation

  • Justus Haucap & Tobias Hartwich & André Uhde, 2005. "Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 74(3), pages 85-107.
    • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:74-3-10
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.74.3.85
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.74.3.85
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.74.3.85?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    2. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2007. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Handbook of Industrial Organization, in: Mark Armstrong & Robert Porter (ed.), Handbook of Industrial Organization, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 31, pages 1967-2072, Elsevier.
    3. Theodore C. Bergstrom, 2001. "Free Labour for Costly Journals?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 15(4), pages 183-198, Fall.
    4. Doh-Shin Jeon & Jean-Jacques Laffont & Jean Tirole, 2004. "On the Receiver-Pays Principle," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 35(1), pages 85-110, Spring.
    5. David N. Laband, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics?: Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 105(2), pages 341-352.
    6. Michael Bräuninger & Justus Haucap, 2001. "Was Ökonomen lesen und schätzen: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 2(2), pages 185-210, May.
    7. Jean-Charles Rochet & Jean Tirole, 2003. "Platform Competition in Two-Sided Markets," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(4), pages 990-1029, June.
    8. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 947-993, October.
    9. Mark McCabe, 2004. "Information goods and endogenous pricing strategies: the case of academic journals," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11.
    10. Bruno S. Frey, 2003. "Publishing as prostitution? — Choosing between one’s own ideas and academic success," Springer Books, in: Roger D. Congleton & Kai A. Konrad & Arye L. Hillman (ed.), 40 Years of Research on Rent Seeking 2, pages 749-767, Springer.
    11. Mark J. McCabe, 2002. "Journal Pricing and Mergers: A Portfolio Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(1), pages 259-269, March.
    12. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2004:i:10:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    14. Glenn Ellison, 2002. "Evolving Standards for Academic Publishing: A q-r Theory," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 110(5), pages 994-1034, October.
    15. Sutter, Matthias & Kocher, Martin G., 2001. "Tools for evaluating research output: Are citation-base rankings of economics journals stable?," Munich Reprints in Economics 18222, University of Munich, Department of Economics.
    16. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    17. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kocher, 2001. "Tools for Evaluating Research Output," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(5), pages 555-566, October.
    18. Issman-Weit, Einat & Shy, Oz, 2003. "Pricing of library subscriptions with applications to scientific journals," Journal of Economics and Business, Elsevier, vol. 55(2), pages 197-218.
    19. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-1349, December.
    20. Liebowitz, S J & Palmer, J P, 1984. "Assessing the Relative Impacts of Economic Journals," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 22(1), pages 77-88, March.
    21. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    22. Barry Nalebuff, 2004. "Bundling as an Entry Barrier," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(1), pages 159-187.
    23. Bruno S. Frey, 2004. "Publizieren als Prostitution?," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 5(3), pages 333-336, August.
    24. Roson Roberto, 2005. "Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, June.
    25. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-1067, December.
    26. Moore, William J & Newman, Robert J & Turnbull, Geoffrey K, 2001. "Reputational Capital and Academic Pay," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 39(4), pages 663-671, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    2. Meurer, Petra, 2013. "Open Access: Entwicklung und Perspektiven," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 14-2013, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    3. Haucap, Justus & Loebert, Ina & Spindler, Gerald & Thorwarth, Susanne, 2016. "Ökonomische Auswirkungen einer Bildungs- und Wissenschaftsschranke im Urheberrecht," DICE Ordnungspolitische Perspektiven 86, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf Institute for Competition Economics (DICE).
    4. EFI - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation (ed.), 2013. "Research, innovation and technological performance in Germany - EFI Report 2013," Reports on Research, Innovation and Technological Performance in Germany, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin, volume 127, number 2013e, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Justus Haucap & Johannes Muck, 2015. "What drives the relevance and reputation of economics journals? An update from a survey among economists," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 103(3), pages 849-877, June.
    2. Azar, Ofer H., 2008. "Evolution of social norms with heterogeneous preferences: A general model and an application to the academic review process," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 65(3-4), pages 420-435, March.
    3. Ofer H. Azar, 2007. "The Slowdown In First‐Response Times Of Economics Journals: Can It Be Beneficial?," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 45(1), pages 179-187, January.
    4. Sascha Baghestanian & Sergey V. Popov, 2018. "On publication, refereeing and working hard," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 51(4), pages 1419-1459, November.
    5. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is It Too Fast?," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 72(2), pages 482-491, October.
    6. Ofer H. Azar, 2006. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," The American Economist, Sage Publications, vol. 50(1), pages 37-50, March.
    7. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Joao Faria, 2012. "Search and research: the influence of editorial boards on journals’ quality," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 73(4), pages 687-702, October.
    8. Ofer Azar, 2003. "Rejections and the Importance of First Response Times (Or: How Many Rejections Do Others Receive?)," General Economics and Teaching 0309002, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Azar Ofer H., 2015. "A Model of the Academic Review Process with Informed Authors," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(2), pages 865-889, April.
    10. Moizer, Peter, 2009. "Publishing in accounting journals: A fair game?," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 285-304, February.
    11. Bruno Frey, 2005. "Problems with Publishing: Existing State and Solutions," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 19(2), pages 173-190, April.
    12. Besancenot, Damien & Vranceanu, Radu, 2008. "Can incentives for research harm research? A business schools' tale," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 1248-1265, June.
    13. Justus Haucap & Nima Moshgbar & W. Benedikt Schmal, 2021. "The impact of the German 'DEAL' on competition in the academic publishing market," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 2027-2049, December.
    14. Damien Besancenot & Kim Huynh & Radu Vranceanu, 2011. "A Matching Model of the Academic Publication Market," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 167(4), pages 708-725, December.
    15. Bruno S. Frey, "undated". "Publishing as Prostitution? Choosing Between One�s Own Ideas and Academic Failure," IEW - Working Papers 117, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. Azar, Ofer H., 2007. "Behavioral economics and socio-economics journals: A citation-based ranking," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 36(3), pages 451-462, June.
    17. Seidl, Christian & Schmidt, Ulrich & Grösche, Peter, 2005. "The Performance of Peer Review and a Beauty Contest of Referee Processes of Economics Journals/," Estudios de Economia Aplicada, Estudios de Economia Aplicada, vol. 23, pages 505-551, Diciembre.
    18. Mark J. McCabe & Christopher M. Snyder, 2018. "Open Access as a Crude Solution to a Hold‐Up Problem in the Two‐Sided Market for Academic Journals," Journal of Industrial Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 66(2), pages 301-349, June.
    19. Frank Mueller‐Langer & Richard Watt, 2021. "Optimal pricing and quality of academic journals and the ambiguous welfare effects of forced open access: A two‐sided model," Managerial and Decision Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(8), pages 1945-1959, December.
    20. Chris Doucouliagos & T.D. Stanley, 2013. "Are All Economic Facts Greatly Exaggerated? Theory Competition And Selectivity," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 27(2), pages 316-339, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:74-3-10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.