IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Besonderheiten und Wettbewerbsprobleme des Marktes für wissenschaftliche Fachzeitschriften

  • Justus Haucap
  • Tobias Hartwich
  • André Uhde

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.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

Volume (Year): 74 (2005)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 85-107

in new window

Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:74-3-10
Contact details of provider: Postal: Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin
Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
Web page:

More information through EDIRC

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

as in new window
  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. Barry Nalebuff, 2004. "Bundling as an Entry Barrier," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 119(1), pages 159-187, February.
  3. Farrell, Joseph & Klemperer, Paul, 2006. "Coordination and Lock-In: Competition with Switching Costs and Network Effects," Competition Policy Center, Working Paper Series qt9n26k7v1, Competition Policy Center, Institute for Business and Economic Research, UC Berkeley.
  4. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Review Process in Economics: Is it Too Fast?," General Economics and Teaching 0503013, EconWPA.
  5. repec:ebl:ecbull:v:12:y:2004:i:10:p:1-11 is not listed on IDEAS
  6. Glenn Ellison, 2000. "The Slowdown of the Economics Publishing Process," NBER Working Papers 7804, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  7. 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.
  8. Engers, Maxim & Gans, Joshua S, 1998. "Why Referees Are Not Paid (Enough)," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1341-49, December.
  9. 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.
  10. Roson Roberto, 2005. "Two-Sided Markets: A Tentative Survey," Review of Network Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 4(2), pages 1-19, June.
  11. 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.
  12. 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 663-71, October.
  13. Ofer H. Azar, 2005. "The Academic Review Process: How Can We Make it More Efficient?," General Economics and Teaching 0502069, EconWPA.
  14. 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 1041-67, December.
  15. Michael Bräninger & Justus Haucap, 2001. "Was �konomen lesen und schätzen: Ergebnisse einer Umfrage," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 2(2), pages 185-210, 05.
  16. Mark McCabe, 2004. "Information goods and endogenous pricing strategies: the case of academic journals," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 12(10), pages 1-11.
  17. Laband, David N, 1990. "Is There Value-Added from the Review Process in Economics? Preliminary Evidence from Authors," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 105(2), pages 341-52, May.
  18. Matthias Sutter & Martin G. Kocher, 2001. "Tools for Evaluating Research Output," Evaluation Review, , vol. 25(5), pages 555-566, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

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.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.