Byte Size Biology: Does Open Access benefit small universities

“There has been quite a lot of chatter recently about different scientific publishing models. Prompted by Elsevier’s support for the Research Works Act, and the resulting proposed  academic boycott... One supporting argument for OA is that small universities and four-year colleges, and institutes in developing countries can ill-afford to subscribe to a large number of close-access publications. this places researchers and students at a disadvantage. Therefore, the OA model of publishing does them a favor by reducing subscription fees, granting broader access to publications... On the the flip side , it is in those very same institutes that researchers have less “disposable income” to pay for publications.  $2500, a typical OA fee, for a lab funded by an R15  (small NIH grants given to less research-intensive institutes) or a small NSF grant is a larger chunk of change than $2500 for a lab holding a couple of R01s (the larger NIH “workhorse” grant). Knowing the limit on these grants, a researcher squeezed for funding would rather budget for an extra month for a graduate student than for OA publication fees.  In [a] way, OA fees are something of a regressive tax: it hurts those with less disposable income more... So what would be the solution? I agree with FakeElsevier that it has to come from the funding agencies. But maybe, instead of OA being a flat-fee, and hence regressive, it can be turned, with the help of the granting agencies, into a progressive fee. After all, those same agencies know how much funding a lab has anyhow, as this must be provided with every grant request, award, and progress report. If a lab is able to demonstrate a “publication hardship”, perhaps an extra subsidy can be given once a paper is accepted, provided it is used towards an OA publication...”