Access to Literature and the Progress of Science

Rosalind Reid

Editor, American Scientist Symposium Scientific Publishing: What Does the Future Hold?

Lehigh University • November 12, 2005

Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is exhausting for children to have to provide explanations over and over again.

The Little Prince

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

author copyright reviewer shortages institutional repositories library budget crises journal proliferation who is maintaining the archives?

big, costly databases large profits high article charges?

T E X, PDF, MathML self-archiving arXiv preprints ethics issues: fraud, plagiarism, drug money, conflict of interest “ impact factor ” resistance to granting credit for online publication new NIH policy survival of disciplinary societies developing-country issues duplicate publication

author copyright reviewer shortages institutional repositories library budget crises journal proliferation who is maintaining the archives?

big, costly databases large profits high article charges?

T E X, PDF, MathML self-archiving arXiv preprints ethics issues: fraud, plagiarism, drug money, conflict of interest “ impact factor ” resistance to granting credit for online publication new NIH policy survival of disciplinary societies developing-country issues duplicate publication

Scientific publishing: an industry in flux

 Internet publishing can be cheaper  Dual systems now functioning to serve traditional needs + heightened expectations  Publishers (especially commercial publishers) have invested in wonderful but costly systems for rapid online delivery and broad searching  Archiving responsibilities not yet sorted out  Excess revenues make society membership affordable and support other vital society activities

canonical market economy producer

sells goods

firm

sells goods

producer

sells services

traditional publishing writers

(content producers) gather knowledge or create literature

also:

register and defend copyright

agents

market work to publishers $

publishers

screen and select work for value add value: edit index typeset print bind distribute invest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturing return excess revenues (profits) to investors

also:

advertise solicit and manage subscriptions or orders register and defend copyright $$

libraries

purchase for readers maintain archives $$$$

booksellers newsagents

display, market to readers distribute, collect sales, pay taxes

origins of scientific publishing scientists

gather knowledge share as letters or lectures

academic libraries

purchase for readers maintain archives

scholarly societies

hold conferences collect and publish letters

Knowledge

article:

theory results replication falsification

20th-century scientific publishing

$$

scientists

do research (gather knowledge) prepare results screen and select work for value referee illustrate typeset

libraries

purchase subscriptions bind and maintain archives $$$$

publishers

screen and select work for value add value: edit index typeset print bind distribute invest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturing return excess revenues (profits) to investors

also:

advertise solicit and manage subscriptions or orders register and defend copyright

today’s scientific publishing

$$

scientists

do research (gather knowledge) prepare results screen and select work for value referee illustrate typeset

libraries

purchase subscriptions bind and maintain archives $$$$

publishers

screen and select work for value add value: edit index typeset print bind distribute invest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturing return excess revenues (profits) to investors build and serve databases and search services

also:

advertise solicit and manage subscriptions or orders register and defend copyright

LIBRARIES FUNDERS

$$ $$

professional rewards, advancement of science, meetings SCIENTISTS

3. Producers of Goods $$

PUBLISHER

Issues

This is an expensive way to do business!

Access for scientists Access for the funding public

From:

Harold Varmus

Date:

Nove mber 10, 2004 10:02:15 PM EST

To:

[email protected] RG

Subject: URGENT support for NIH public access policy

Dear Open Access Supporter, On September 3, 2004 the NIH posted for comment an "Enhanc ed Public Access Policy." This policy would require the recipients of NIH research grants to provide to the National Library of Medicine a digital copy of the final accepted manuscript (or the published version itself) of every published report resulting from NIH -funded research, so that the research results can be made freely available to scientists and th e public through PubMed Central within six months of publication. We are writing now to urge you to submit a comment in support of this proposal right away. The deadline for comments is just a few days away - November 16th. The text of the proposal is available at: You can post comments here: A powerful lobby of publishers and scientific societies is trying to block this plan. The y claim that this is an unwa rranted government intrusion on their business practices. In fact, the NIH policy has no authority over publishers - its rules apply only to the scientists who volunt arily accept grants from the NIH. T he publishers remain free to operate their businesses as they always have and to compete in the f ree market to provide the best service and value to their authors and readers. But the publishers are wrong in arguing that they are entitled to mono poly control over access to the results of research that Ameri can taxpayers have paid for. On the contr ary, the taxpayers who fund the research, and the scientists who carry it out, have every right to ask the grant recipients to provide open access to the published results. And they have every right to expect that the benefits of the research will be amplified by making it freely and widely available for others to use and to build on. Let the NIH know that yo u support this policy proposal. Even better woul d be to tell the NIH that you would prefer an even stronger policy that requires full and immediate open access to all papers resulting from NIH -funded research. It is important that the NIH and other policyma kers understand that this is not (as some publishers would have them believe) a radical proposal destined to destroy scientific publishing, but a thoughtful compromise that balances the desire for better access with the commercial interests of scientific publishers. More information about the policy is available at Notable st atements of support for the plan include: An open l etter to the US Congress signed by 25 Nobel Laureates: The Council of the National Academy of Sciences:

U.S. research funding, FY2006 (Administration proposal): NIH $28.8 billion • NSF $5.6 billion

LIBRARIES FUNDERS

$$ $$

professional rewards, advancement of science, meetings SCIENTISTS

3. Producers of Goods $$

PUBLISHER

publicaccess.nih.gov/overview.htm

Meanwhile, in the UK (policy adopted June 28, 2005)

High costs under current system

Cornell University Libraries report (2004): Open access might increase costs to elite research university (or its funders) CU paid (2003): $1.7 million to Elsevier $1.3 million to other “big” commercial publishers $1 million to other publishers CU authors published 3,636 articles Cost per author if CU paid by article: $1,100

High costs under current system

CUL report: “The question of author and even reader empowerment is a complex one... The need for Open Access and the consequences of publishing in this mode may vary significantly by academic discipline...” Incentives, market dynamics differ radically in alternative systems. “Author pays” works only with funded research in an environment where funder support for publication is consistent.

Alternatives

Scientific publishing: an industry in flux

 Internet communication of research can be cheaper. First copy costs are very high in elite journals. But much of current costs are in maintaining elite services while continuing traditional publishing.

 Current setup provides no rewards for maintaining archives and encourages divide-and-conquer strategies and journal proliferation to maximize publisher revenue. Who is building and maintaining the Cathedral of Learning?

 Scientific societies could (should?) maintain archives, but they need a new, sustainable model to support meetings and other important functions.

What publishing strategy best achieves these goals?

traditional (“reader pays”) moving wall (access restriction funds access) author pays self- or institutional archiving open access (directly subsidized)

efficient communication within fields preservation of the record of knowledge broadest, fastest access to literature quality peer review and publication international communication and equity

Some URLs www.sciencecommons.org

Peter Suber’s newsletter www.arl.org/sparc/soa/ American Scientist Open-Access forum amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/ American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html

I showed the grown-ups my masterpiece, and I asked them if my drawing scared them.

They constrictor, answered, so the “Why be grown-ups scared could of a hat?” My drawing was not a picture of a hat. It was a picture of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant. Then I drew the inside of the boa understand.

The Little Prince