Transcript Slide 1

PUBLISHER
on FEDERAL OPEN
ACCESS MANDATES
Denise Troll Covey
Principal Librarian for Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon
Open Access Week – October 19, 2010
“There is no crisis in the world
of scholarly publishing
or in the dissemination
of scientific materials.”
Allan R. Adler
Association of American Publishers
July 29, 2010
Says who?
• Escalating journal prices force cancellations,
rob book budgets, and reduce access
– From 1986-2008, prices up 374% (CPI up 78%)
– Forced to buy bundles with journals we don’t need
and databases with redundant coverage
• Nature Publishing Group threatened to raise prices 300%
for the University of California
• University of Chicago Press raised prices < 100%
for Carnegie Mellon
The Scientist, September 28, 2010
“Library cuts threaten research”
• University of California San Francisco cancelled 233
journals and several databases
• University of Washington cancelled 1,600 journals,
databases, and microforms
• University of Virginia cancelled 1,169 journals
• University of Arizona cancelled 650 journals
• Georgia State University cancelled 441 journal
and is considering cancelling 1,092 more
• New Mexico State University cancelled over 700
Taxpayers are entitled
to the research they paid for:
data and technical reports.
They cannot understand
journal articles.
Publishers
• Provide free summaries to help
taxpayers interpret research
• Sell journal articles to taxpayers
for > $30 per article
Taxpayers do not pay for
private sector peer reviewed
journal articles produced
at the publisher’s expense.
Say what?
• Publishers fund coordinating peer review,
copyediting, formatting, pagination, etc.
• Academic institutions fund performing peer review
• Federal agencies (taxpayers) fund research
• Final step in research process is peer review
and communication of results
Federal open access mandates
diminish copyright protection
and expropriate private sector
intellectual property.
Bull
Is something
obstructing your vision?
• Authors are the original copyright owners
• Publishers expropriate author copyrights
• Federal open access mandates require authors to
retain the right to provide open access to their work
• What is diminished is not copyright protection,
but publisher power
Publishers ensure that journal
content is “accurate, new,
and important.” They are
the “quality guardians
of the scientific record.”
You must be
kidding.
Open access means no peer review
No, it
does not.
Taxpayers do not fund publisher
investment in peer review
• True, but publishers fund coordinating peer review
• Academic salaries fund performing peer review
Publishers decide what work
to accept or reject based on their
own quality standards and expertise
Phooey!
They do not have
the subject expertise!
Researchers and funders rely
on journal brands to judge a work’s
importance and integrity
• Historically yes, but the practice is under scrutiny
• New metrics will replace journal impact factors
In 2009 Elsevier was exposed for
• Publishing what appeared to be a peer-reviewed
medical journal, but was really
a marketing tool for a
pharmaceutical company
• Offering $25 Amazon gift cards
to anyone who would write
a
of a new textbook
review
Federal open access mandates
threaten U.S. scientific
leadership, competitiveness,
and national security.
Can you look me
in the eye when
you say that?
1.3 billion Chinese have free access
to NIH articles: “extremely worrisome
implications for U.S. scientific
leadership and national security”
• Suggests publishers prefer China not have access
Free access to U.S. research is
“diminishing export opportunities in
one of the fastest growing markets”
– >50% of publisher $$ is foreign subscriptions
– Publishers lose $100 million annually in China
The issue is
publisher revenue.
Open access mandates waste tax
dollars duplicating work publishers
have already done
What duplication?
Publishers haven’t
provided taxpayers
with affordable access
Difference, ambivalence or hypocrisy?
• Many publishers resist open access mandates
• For a fee, many publishers
– Deposit published PDF in NIH’s PubMed Central
– Offer open access to published PDF in the journal
• 63% of 700 publishers in Sherpa RoMEO database
allow some form of self-archiving
– Of this 63%, almost half (45%) allow deposit
of the published PDF in an open access repository
library pays
Problem is the ^ business model
• 90% of publisher revenue is from subscriptions
• Open access is threatening the status quo,
but so is exorbitant journal pricing
• Need new business model to fund open access
to scholarly publications
– Funding agency pays
– Author / institution pays
Federal open access policies
should be based on needs
assessment of all stakeholders
• Open access advocates try to balance
– Publisher needs
– Embargoes to recoup investment
– New business models to support open access
(e.g., Compact for Open Access Publishing Equity)
– User needs and taxpayer rights
JelleS
Big Gray Mare
Shine20
Just a Prairie Boy
monkeysnaps
rob’s lensonlife
haleyhughes
Halans
the_moog
NO COPYRIGHT PERMISSION
thegrocer.co.uk
Kat Cole