Open Access Is the Flavour of the Year: A Review of Four Reports and one response on Open Access

Citation

McGrath, M. (2005), "Open Access Is the Flavour of the Year: A Review of Four Reports and one response on Open Access", Interlending & Document Supply, Vol. 33 No. 1. https://doi.org/10.1108/ilds.2005.12233aae.001

Open Access Is the Flavour of the Year: A Review of Four Reports and one response on Open Access

Reports

Open Access Is the Flavour of the Year: A Review of Four Reports and one response on Open Access

1. 1.

   Scientific Publications: Free for All? (UK Select Committee, House of Commons Science and

2. 2.

   Delivery, Management and Access Model for E prints and Open Access Journals within Further and Higher Education (EPIC and Key Perspectives, 2004)

3. 3.

   Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing (Wellcome, 2004)

4. 4.

   Costs and Business Models in Scientific Research Publishing (Wellcome, 2004)

5. 5.

   “Elsevier’s comments on evolutions in scientific, technical and medical publishing and reflections on possible implications of Open Access journals for the UK” (Elsevier 2004)

Keywords:Archives management, Document supply, Research workDOI:10.1108/02641610510582153

Four reports on Open Access in the space of as many months in the UK alone means that something is up. That something is the crisis in library funding. Libraries are no longer able to purchase all the material that researchers need in order to conduct their research and matters will get worse. The rigours of the free market do not apply to the academic publishing industry contrary to the special pleading of publishers. Where else is the raw material given for free, processed and sold back to the producer at a price that increases in real terms year in and year out? Increases that outstrip all other products by many multiples of the rate of inflation. As the Select Committee report, House of Commons Science and Technology Committee (2004, p. 47) states “publishers can actually increase their market share of ‘must have’ journals by increasing prices that then shuts out less popular journals because of fixed budgets.”. Elsevier considers that it is making a big concession by keeping price increases to single digit percentages when most products are dropping in price or are increasing by inflation only.

Why is this important for document delivery? Demand will decline to the extent that Open Access increases; although generally speaking it should increase if serial subscription prices increase at a greater rate than DocDel prices. Researchers will find much of what they require freely and quickly on repositories especially if these are accessible through search engines. Visionaries have campaigned for years for all academic papers to be made available freely to all via the internet. Will this happen and will it happen soon? These reports suggest that the answers are yes and soon for some.

The Select Committee report is substantial both in size – the evidence runs to 457 pages and the report itself a more modest 114 pages; but more importantly in its authority. Select Committees are a relatively new aspect of the UK Houses of Parliament. They report on what the government is doing and what it should be doing. This committee is a good example – cross party in composition – it is chaired by the redoubtable left wing MP Ian Gibson. Some exchanges are hilarious and will remind UK readers of the TV series “Yes Minister”; for example – “Professor Sir Keith O’Nions told us in oral evidence that ‘I am not going to express a view on whether their (publishers) profits are reasonable or unreasonable. It is a matter for Government to decide whether it is an industry it chooses to regulate or not regulate’. We were baffled by this response; particularly because Sir Keith himself appeared before us as a representative of Government” (p. 32). You couldn’t make it up. The report is hard hitting and cogent, written clearly and simply. Its key recommendation is worth quoting in full:

• •

  This report recommends that all UK higher education institutions establish institutional repositories on which their published output can be stored and from which it can be read, free of charge, online. It also recommends that Research Councils and other Government funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all their articles in this way. The Government will need to appoint a central body to oversee the implementation of the repositories (p. 3).

Experience in both the USA and the UK so far has shown that repositories have not been viewed with enthusiasm by academics so this recommendation is vital. Along with I would suggest some powerful promotion and marketing to convince academics that it is in their own interest to deposit. This is where Elsevier’s move allowing writers to place papers on their personal web site has been astute. Researchers will be between the devil of Elsevier and the deep blue sea of institutions that insist on wider access. Any bets?

Many useful facts are bought together in one document – especially if one includes the written evidence. For example – “2000 STM publishers produce 1.2 million articles a year in 16,000 journals” (p. 12) and “84% of the 65,000 articles originating in the UK in 2002 derived from publicly funded research” (p. 14). Although the budgetary crisis in libraries has been well aired, it is surprising perhaps to note that according to SCONUL “the mean number of journal titles received by its member libraries in 1993-94 was 3,976; the nearest equivalent figure for 2001-02 is 6,489” (p. 14). Much of this increase will be due to “big deal” signing but nonetheless the increase is pretty healthy. Like many others the Committee fails to distinguish between loaning and copying; it states that “The British Library currently charges £8.65 for an inter-library loan” (p. 21); no, it charges that for a copy and £10.30 for a loan. However the report gives a pat on the back for the BLDSC – “The British Library’s Document Supply Service is an efficient and cost-effective method of providing access to articles in scientific journals” (p. 21). However it draws the wrong and dangerous conclusion from the British Library’s evidence on its journal cancellation decisions when it comments “The British Library receives free copies of all UK-based journals under legal deposit legislation, thus these figures relate to subscriptions to journals published abroad” (p. 50). This is not so – the BL is careful to ensure that all paid for document delivery derives from paid subscription journals including those published in the UK.

The report highlights the growing disquiet felt by librarians and their customers that the right to view is more restrictive in an electronic environment than previously. It makes the resounding conclusion that “It is not for publishers or academics to decide who should, and who should not be allowed to read scientific journal articles” – if only life were that simple. The report is critical of the big deals and the arguments against them are summed up with great cogency on pages 32-36. Although Bob Campbell states “in our view it is a transitional model … ” (p. 36) it remains to be seen if libraries can, as a result, save money. Commercial publishers are very resourceful when it comes to keeping the bottom line growing. Costs of digitisation are the latest reason given for the high prices of journals and again the report, while accepting some of this argument remains sceptical of publisher special pleading and concludes, “We are persuaded that the costs to publishers associated with digitisation will reduce over time. Consequently, we would no longer expect these costs to be used as a justification for steep increases in prices”. In fact the growth of Open Access (OA) is likely to be the real curb on price increases rather than the reduced costs of digitisation.

The report has much to say on OA and makes numerous sensible suggestions. It notes that “Institutions need an incentive to set up repositories”. It recommends that funding be made available and that publicly funded bodies “mandate their funded researchers to deposit a copy of all their articles in their institutions repository” (p. 59). It is scathing about the lack of joined up thinking in the government and joins the queue of many others who have fallen foul of this lack of coordination. Specifically it recommends that:

In order for institutional repositories to achieve maximum effectiveness, Government must adopt a joined up approach. DTI (Dept of Trade and Industry). OST (Office of Science and Technology, DfES (Department for Education and Skills) and DCMS (Dept of Culture Media and Sport) should work together to create a strategy for the implementation of institutional repositories, with clearly defined aims and a realistic timetable (p. 61).

The report quotes SHERPA as calculating £12 million for the establishment of repositories in the 131 HE institutions in the UK which it considers “plainly represent value for money” (p. 66). It goes further in recommending “a government established central body (that) would play a major role in implementing technical standards across institutional repositories to ensure maximum functionality and interoperability” (p. 69).

It notes that the UK currently accounts for only about 3.3 per cent of all published articles and therefore it is vital to internationalise the movement. Both the EU and the USA are moving ahead in this area so there is room for optimism. Much space is devoted to the “author pays” model for Open Access publishing and it observes that “early indications suggest that the author-pays publishing model could be viable” (p. 74). The report is sceptical of the claims of the Wellcome Trust report SQW (2004a) that the cost would be “30% less overall” in the author pays model and concludes cautiously that “it is too early to assess the impact … ” (p. 77). Potentially its most significant conclusion is, “that Government mobilise the different interest groups to support a comprehensive independent study into the costs associated with author pays publishing” On the whole then a tough and sensible report. We can only hope that the recommendations will be taken seriously by the relevant departments – although past experience of DCMS and DTI would suggest, at least to this reviewer, that vigorous and systematic lobbying will be needed. As this review was going to press the response of the government was announced. Lobbying was certainly done by the commercial publishers – not that the DTI is hard to lobby from this quarter. All the recommendations were rejected which is a pretty unique experience for a select committee report – and shows just how conservative this government has become. Those of a radical mind have plenty of reasons to be disenchanted with “New Labour” – this is one more.

A parallel report, EPIC and Key Perspectives (2004), is less robust but perhaps more aware of the realities on the ground. JISC is the powerful committee that oversees technological developments in UK higher and further education and published this report shortly after the Select Committee. It recommends that a “harvesting” model be established “in which the harvested metadata are first improved, standardised or enhanced before being made accessible to users and service providers”. More cautious than the Select Committee it recommends that “JISC should develop a programme to encourage all research-led educational in the UK to establish e-print archives” and “Research funders should be encouraged to mandate self-archiving of research funded by them … ” (my emphases).

The Wellcome Trust has published two reports on Open Access. The Trust is important because it has an endowment of around £10 billion and is the UK’s largest non-governmental source of funds for biomedical research. In the first, (SQW, 2004b) the Director of the Wellcome Trust writes in the preface “The ultimate aim of this dialogue is to develop a publishing system that meets the needs of the originators and consumers of scientific research and best promotes this as a public good – that is, to freely disseminate research outputs to all who have an interest in them” (p. ii). That is cards on the table with a vengeance. The report thoroughly covers a number of scenarios – “more of the same/commercial withdrawal/commercial publishers gain more control/open access becomes dominant”. However clearly not thoroughly enough as another report was found to be necessary. This second report (SQW, 2004a) picks up on a developing theme in the earlier report: namely that the “author pays” model is a viable alternative to the current situation. Again the Director of the Wellcome Trust in the preface writes – “This report provides evidence that an author – pays model offers a viable alternative to subscription journals. Open access publishing should be able to deliver high quality, peer reviewed research at a cost that is significantly less that the traditional model while bringing with it a number of additional benefits” (p. iii). While the report is very detailed and well written the crucial issues of costs is not entirely convincing – as is picked up by both the Select Committee report and by Elsevier (see below). Total allocated costs will be a source of much conflict. For example Open Access advocates will tend to rely on promotion by belief whereas commercial publishers rely on more conventional if costly means. The report itself is not clear on this issue – at one point allocating marketing to fixed costs and at another to variable costs.

And if you want to see a robust assertion of a different view then you can do no better than to turn to the publisher that librarians love to hate – Elsevier (2004). It concludes that “substantial investments” have lead to a situation in which “97% of UK researchers have direct access, on average, to around 90% of Elsevier journals under licence of their host institution”. In addition that “from 2001 to 2003 the number of UK researchers downloading Elsevier’s articles at least once a month more than doubled from 145,000 to 360,000” and they emphasise that the cost per article from Science Direct “has fallen from £4.57 to £1.69 since 2001/2” and they envisage will fall to “less than £1 within two years”. They then go on to more directly criticise the Open Access model arguing that the cost to funders would be “30-50% more for STM journals in an Open Access system than they (pay) today”. Other criticisms are that reliance on electronic only production will disenfranchise many users, that public trust will be undermined and that under the author- pays model commercial organisations will pay far less than academic customers as their researchers produce far less articles than universities and related institutions. All significant arguments but perhaps best made by someone less biased.

Lastly the European Commission has weighed in with its own study – “An effective scientific publishing system for European Research.” The study will … seek to identify measures at European level which could help to improve conditions governing access to and the exchange, dissemination and archiving of scientific publications … ” (www.eu.int/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/04/747&format=HT). Although the results will be available in 2005 no details are given of how the study is to be conducted or by whom. Nor could this reviewer find any more details of developments since the announcement in June.

Conclusion

If we had to wait for the wheels to grind in the UK government then we would as well not hold our breath for conclusions to emerge. However, the Wellcome reports and the JISC report suggest strongly that the wheels will move faster and that within a short period we will see many functioning repositories being populated with preprints as well as a big expansion in Open Access journals. The key issues for the success of Open Access are that:

• •

  costs should be significantly less than commercial publishing;

• •

  repositories should be well designed and linked;

• •

  funds are made available for the author-pays model; and

• •

  credible Open Access journal titles expand rapidly.

Will commercial publishing be replaced with Open Access and if so when? If the advocates of Open Access can demonstrate conclusively in practice that an Open Access journal is significantly cheaper and as credible as its commercial equivalent then it will succeed and all other issues relating to its success will fall into place relatively easily. If this cannot be demonstrated then they won’t – libraries are too cash strapped to indulge in the luxury of ideologically motivated decision making. Institutional repositories may well succeed but this would have the risk of achieving the worst of both worlds. Commercial journals will lose some circulation and even fold, leading to higher prices and users will have to use two quite separate systems in order to access papers. The next couple of years will be interesting if chaotic!

Mike McGrathEditor Interlending & Document Supply