|
The
world of scientific and medical publishing has found itself embroiled in a
bitter controversy about the future of academic publishing and the
dissemination of information. Several months ago the controversy
stimulated a number of not-for-profit publishers to issue the Washington
DC Principles for Free Access to Science (http://www.dcprinciples.org).
Several weeks ago, the debate came front and center again when Public
Library of Science Medicine, a new online journal that purportedly
provides “open access” to both readers and authors, made a call for
article submissions.
Journals
have played an integral role in the advancement of scientific and medical
research, knowledge, and innovation since 1665—when the Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society first appeared in London. The thousands
of journals published each year form a vast repository of learning and
discovery—our intellectual heritage, if you will—that cannot be easily
duplicated or recreated. Put simply, journals help to drive science
forward.
In the past,
research investigators chose in which journal to publish by considering
its prestige and the cost of publication. Generally speaking, authors
could choose to publish in commercial journals with no author fees or an
association journal with page charges. With over 5,000 scientific journals
to choose from, scientists could choose from a wide-range of journals with
varying fee structures and prestige. In addition, the author could choose
whether to publish in a journal that provided free access immediately or
within two months, six months or 12 months. The reality of the online
publishing world was that both not-for-profit and commercial publishers
provided authors with choices that met the needs of the scientific and
medical community.
The
advocates of the open access model of publishing contend that access to
content and information is hindered in the current publishing environment
and that the only answer is to change the existing publishing models and
charge the author to allow for immediate open access to the article. This
is a worthy goal but one that fails to recognize the tremendous strides
made by both not-for-profit and commercial publishers to make content
available immediately online and to increase the number of articles freely
available to the world. The members of the DC Principles Coalition have
put over 500,000 articles online for free and they are actively scanning
their archival content (back to 1900 in some cases) making it available
online for free.
The supporters of an “open access” model contend that publication is the
final step of the research process and, thus, should be supported by
research grants provided by the Federal government or other funding
agencies/organizations. Unfortunately, grants provided by the National
Institutes of Health, the primary supporter of biomedical research, are
often awarded in $25,000 modules that allow for some flexibility in how to
use the monies, but not enough to allow the research investigator to make
realistic choices. Should funds be used to support the supplies and
personnel to do the research or the cost of publication? As the head of a
research lab was overheard asking, should funds be used to pay the health
insurance premiums for the graduate students supported on a grant or the
author fees associated with the publication of a manuscript?
In the US,
the supporters of PLoS are attempting to influence funding agencies to
adopt policies and to earmark funds in order to advance open access. In
the UK, a committee in the House of Commons is currently conducting an
inquiry regarding the pricing and availability of scientific publications.
Open access advocates are also seeking Congressional support for the
principles of open access through legislative efforts, including Rep.
Martin Sabo’s effort last year to eliminate copyright on federally funded
research. Can we realistically expect the NIH and the federal government
to cover the full cost of publication at a time of budgetary constraint?
After all, this is the same government that has threatened to eliminate
funding for one of this country’s most successful science projects, the
Hubble Space Telescope.
The term “open access” is actually something of a misnomer when it comes
to describing online journal publishing. While readers enjoy free access
to these publications, authors are required to pay $1,500 (in the case of
PLoS Biology) to have their work published, making it more accurately
termed “author pays.” The real cost of publishing a scientific article can
be $3,000-$4,500. Enterprises like PLoS rely on a $9 million foundation
startup grant to allow them to advocate for an author-pays-model and to
only charge the author a fraction of the publications cost. Perhaps
recognizing the inability to sustain this long-term, PLoS has added
institutional membership fees to their funding structure at levels that
are higher than most subscription fees.
The open
access business model has implications far beyond the long-term viability
of the journals. It means that well-funded scientists and institutions
have an advantage over their less affluent colleagues when it comes to
scientific publishing. Moreover, it’s likely that colleges and
universities will have to absorb the cost of this “pay-for-play” system,
further taxing already overburdened budgets. And those universities with
the most prolific researchers will end up paying the most.
The bottom line is that not-for-profit and commercial publishing has
proven a successful model for advancing scientific knowledge and discovery
for over two centuries. This model ensures the integrity and preservation
of our intellectual heritage and provides the technology and tools to make
that heritage ever more widely available. The result: scientists and
doctors can do their jobs better. We believe that a free society allows
for the co-existence of many publishing models, including an author pays
model, and therefore believe that it would be foolish and dangerous to do
away with one model for another that remains largely unproven.
Martin Frank,
Executive Director, APS
|
