[Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
Roderic Page
r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Wed Feb 17 05:15:03 CST 2010
Dear Lynn,
The fees you quote are for joining the DOI Foundation, which is a
complete different thing! CrossRef is a member of this Foundation, it
is the one paying those fees http://www.doi.org/membership/brochure.html
CrossRef handles DOIs for publishers, which pay a fee to CrossRef for
that service. These are outlined at http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html
For a small publisher (making < $US 1,000,000) the annual fee is $US
275. Backfile articles cost 15c per DOI, current content (defined as
2008-2010 costs $1 per DOI.
Regards
Rod
On 17 Feb 2010, at 08:35, Lynn Raw wrote:
> Jim,
>
> I am not sure where you obtained this information. This is what
> appears on the official site:
>
> Membership fees fall due annually on the anniversary of joining --
> US members will be invoiced their member fees in US$ and non-US
> members will be invoiced their member fees in GBP£. The pound
> sterling value will be calculated each year based on the US exchange
> rate set at the start of each year, currently this is $1.86:£1.
> Eligibility for Membership may be re-evaluated at each point the
> Member Agreement falls due for renewal.
> The current annual fee for General Members is $US 35,000 (GBP£18,817).
> The current annual fee for Charter Members is $US 70,000 (GBP
> £37,634), reduced to $40,000 (GBP£21,505) if the Charter Member is
> also a lender to the foundation.
> The current annual fee for Members may be reduced at the sole
> discretion of the Board, subject to a minimum fee of $US 11,500 (GBP
> £6,183) per annum. There are no differences in member rights and
> benefits between Charter and General, nor for those for which a
> reduced fee is payable. Criteria which will be considered in
> applications for such reduction include in particular any of the
> following:
>
> * Significant role in the creation or ongoing support of the
> Foundation.
>
> * Not-for-profit organizations, which have annual revenue, as
> measured by the most recent audited statement, of less than $US
> 10,000,000.
>
> * For-profit organizations which have annual revenue, as measured
> by the most recent audited statement, of less than $US 10,000,000,
> and are either not majority-owned by an entity with over $US
> 10,000,000 revenue which would fulfil the criteria for IDF
> membership eligibility in its own right, or are a subsidiary of an
> existing Member of the Foundation.
>
> The current annual fee for Registration Agency Members is $US 35,000
> (GBP£18,817).
> The current annual fee for Affiliate Members is $US 2,000 (GBP
> £1,075). This is a minimum membership fee and Affiliate members are
> encouraged to donate a larger sum at their discretion.
> In general, it is likely that the cost of your fees will be
> deductible as a business expense of the joining entity. The detailed
> question of deductibility is, however, a matter for the tax advisors
> to the entity that is joining, and it is not governed by IDF's
> status as a not-for-profit entity.
>
> Lynn Raw
> London, UK
>
> On 16 Feb 2010, at 23:35, Edwards, James wrote:
>
>> Typical costs for DOIs range from US $.03 (yes, three cents!) to
>> $20 per article. So they are unlikely to be the "huge expense" for
>> a publisher that Stephen Thorpe fears.
>>
>> Jim Edwards
>> ________________________________________
>> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> ] On Behalf Of Frederick W. Schueler [bckcdb at istar.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, February 15, 2010 6:01 PM
>> Cc: TAXACOM
>> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] In defense of DOIs
>>
>> Stephen Thorpe wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't deny that DOIs are "useful", and indeed I use them on
>>> Wikispecies whenever possible, though to me they are useful
>>> primarily as links to publications, rather than as identifiers per
>>> se. The question though is whether they are useful ENOUGH to
>>> justify the huge expense? On that I (and notable others, as you
>>> know from the off-list discussion) am not so sure. Is it
>>> worthwhile for a publisher to do DOIs at the expense of taxonomic
>>> output? If Zootaxa could only publish say half of its current
>>> output with the added workload created by DOIs, would this be
>>> worthwhile? I would have more confidence in DOIs as permanent
>>> links if they were independent of publishers, so a DOI actually
>>> linked to a page hosted by the DOI people, rather than to the
>>> publishers pages, and this could best be done with open access
>>> articles. Why should the publishers have to pay for DOIs when
>>> bioinformatics people are the ones who want the DOIs most? Just
>>> like the issue of all these global biodiversity
>> databases - they are (perhaps) nice to have, but are they worth it?
>> Do they facilitate more taxonomy, or do they compete with more
>> taxonomy?
>>
>> * for those of us outside the loop, how much does a DOI for an
>> article
>> cost? If this is large (as I gather it is), what's the explanation
>> for
>> the cost?
>>
>> fred.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> Frederick W. Schueler & Aleta Karstad
>> Bishops Mills Natural History Centre - http://pinicola.ca/bmnhc.htm
>> Thirty Years Later Expedition - http://pinicola.ca/thirty/
>> Longterm ecological monitoring - http://fragileinheritance.ca/
>> Portraits of light - http://www.aletakarstad.com/
>> Mudpuppy Night in Oxford Mills - http://pinicola.ca/mudpup1.htm
>> RR#2 Bishops Mills, Ontario, Canada K0G 1T0
>> on the Smiths Falls Limestone Plain 44* 52'N 75* 42'W
>> (613)258-3107 <bckcdb at istar.ca> http://pinicola.ca/
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
>> of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/
>> pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>>
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>>
>> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
>> of these methods:
>>
>> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/
>> pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either
> of these methods:
>
> (1) http://taxacom.markmail.org
>
> Or (2) a Google search specified as: site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/
> pipermail/taxacom your search terms here
>
---------------------------------------------------------
Roderic Page
Professor of Taxonomy
DEEB, FBLS
Graham Kerr Building
University of Glasgow
Glasgow G12 8QQ, UK
Email: r.page at bio.gla.ac.uk
Tel: +44 141 330 4778
Fax: +44 141 330 2792
AIM: rodpage1962 at aim.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1112517192
Twitter: http://twitter.com/rdmpage
Blog: http://iphylo.blogspot.com
Home page: http://taxonomy.zoology.gla.ac.uk/rod/rod.html
More information about the Taxacom
mailing list