Access to Literatureand the Progress of Science

Rosalind ReidEditor, 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 PrinceAntoine de Saint-Exupéry

high article charges?

“impact factor”

TEX, PDF, MathML

arXivpreprints

big, costlydatabases

developing-countryissues

journalproliferation

author copyright

institutionalrepositories

resistance to grantingcredit for online

publication

self-archiving

survival of disciplinary

societies

new NIH policywho is maintaining

the archives?

library budget crises

reviewer shortages

duplicate publication

ethics issues: fraud,plagiarism, drug money,

conflict of interest

large profits

high article charges?

“impact factor”

TEX, PDF, MathML

arXivpreprints

big, costlydatabases

developing-countryissues

journalproliferation

author copyright

institutionalrepositories

resistance to grantingcredit for online

publication

self-archiving

survival of disciplinary

societies

new NIH policywho is maintaining

the archives?

library budget crises

reviewer shortages

duplicate publication

ethics issues: fraud,plagiarism, drug money,

conflict of interest

large profits

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

producersellsgoods

firmsells goods

producersellsservices

traditional publishing

writers(content producers)gather knowledge or create literature

publishersscreen and select work for valueadd value: edit indextypesetprintbinddistributeinvest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturingreturn excess revenues (profits) to investors

also:advertisesolicit and manage subscriptions or ordersregister and defend copyright

also:register and defend copyright

booksellersnewsagentsdisplay, market to readersdistribute, collect sales, pay taxes

librariespurchase for readersmaintain archives

$$$$$$

$

agentsmarket workto publishers

origins of scientific publishing

scientistsgather knowledgeshare as letters or lectures

scholarly societieshold conferencescollect and publish letters

academic librariespurchase for readersmaintain archives

KnowledgeKnowledge

article:theoryresults

replicationfalsification

20th-centuryscientific publishing

scientistsdo research (gather knowledge)prepare resultsscreen and select work for valuerefereeillustratetypeset

publishersscreen and select work for valueadd value: edit indextypesetprintbinddistributeinvest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturingreturn excess revenues (profits) to investors

also:advertisesolicit and manage subscriptions or ordersregister and defend copyright

librariespurchase subscriptionsbind and maintain archives

$$$$

$$

today’sscientific publishing

scientistsdo research (gather knowledge)prepare resultsscreen and select work for valuerefereeillustratetypeset

publishersscreen and select work for valueadd value: edit indextypesetprintbinddistributeinvest in plant and equipment to increase quality and efficiency of manufacturingreturn excess revenues (profits) to investorsbuild and serve databases and search services

also:advertisesolicit and manage subscriptions or ordersregister and defend copyright

librariespurchase subscriptionsbind and maintain archives

$$$$

$$

SCIENTISTS PUBLISHERS

professional rewards,advancement of science,meetings

LIBRARIES

$$

FUNDERS

$$$$

3. Producers of Goods

1. Suppliers of Services

Issues

This is an expensive way to do business!

Access for scientists

Access for the funding public

From: Harold Varmus <haroldvarmus@plos.org> Date: November 10, 2004 10:02:15 PM EST To: AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG Subject: URGENT support for NIH public access policy Dear Open Access Supporter, On September 3, 2004 the NIH posted for comment an "Enhanced 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 the 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: <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html> You can post comments here: <http://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/public_access/add.htm> A powerful lobby of publishers and scientific societies is trying to block this plan. They claim that this is an unwarranted government intrusion on their business practices. In fact, the NIH policy has no authority over publishers - its rules apply only to the scientists who voluntarily accept grants from the NIH. The publishers remain free to operate their businesses as they always have and to compete in the free 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 monopoly control over access to the results of research that American taxpayers have paid for. On the contrary, 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 you support this policy proposal. Even better would 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 policymakers 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 <http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/index.htm> <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/> Notable statements of support for the plan include: An open letter to the US Congress signed by 25 Nobel Laureates: <http://www.taxpayeraccess.org/bof.html> The Council of the National Academy of Sciences: <http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s09162004?OpenDocument>

U.S. research funding, FY2006 (Administration proposal):

NIH $28.8 billion • NSF $5.6 billion

SCIENTISTS PUBLISHERS

professional rewards,advancement of science,meetings

LIBRARIES

$$

FUNDERS

$$$$

3. Producers of Goods

1. Suppliers of Services

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 articlesCost 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 strategybest 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 newsletterwww.arl.org/sparc/soa/

American Scientist Open-Access forumamsci-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 answered, “Why be scared 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 constrictor, so the grown-ups could understand.

The Little Prince