Open Access News

The International Publishers Association (IPA) has released released an English translation of the Bundesrat Decision of May 11, 2007.  Excerpt:

Decision of the Bundesrat

Communication from the Commission of the European Communities to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation

COM (2007) 56 final; Council Doc. 5748/07

In its 833rd session on 11 May 2007, pursuant to §§ 3 and 5 EUZBLG (Act on Cooperation between the Federation and the Federal States in European Union Affairs), the Bundesrat adopted the following Opinion:

1. The Bundesrat generally welcomes the Communication from the Commission taking up the increasingly important topic of knowledge dissemination in the digital age....

The call for the freest possible, immediate and open access to information corresponds with the aim of the EU to increase the competitiveness of the European economy.

2. At the same time, the Bundesrat points out that the call for the freest possible, immediate and open access to scientific information may conflict with the protection of intellectual property, and in particular copyright, which is also a significant criterion for the success of the internal market and the promotion of innovation and creative activity....

3. The Bundesrat therefore welcomes that the Communication does not only present ways to facilitate knowledge transfer, but also outlines the position of publishers, emphasising their central role in the scientific information system.

In this context the Bundesrat particularly welcomes that the Commission recognises the quality control function of publishers of scientific publications, and that it intends to monitor open access experiments - also offensively pursued by publishers, as well as to support their publication costs.

Publishers, and particularly the scientific journals they publish, play a pivotal role in the scientific information system. Over the past years, the publishing industry has undertaken substantial investments in the area of “online publishing”, thereby already contributing to an efficient dissemination of information. In doing this, publishers constantly compete for authors and readers. This ultimately guarantees the high quality of scientific publications....

5. The Bundesrat regards open access publication as an additional method of knowledge dissemination, in particular with regard to research results. However, the Bundesrat also points out that open access does not avoid the costs of knowledge processing and knowledge transfer, but rather shifts them from the users to the authors; that there are also reasons in favour of publishing scientific publications through a publisher.

The Bundesrat welcomes that the Communication does not regard changes, in particular limitations on copyright, as necessary to reach the goals....

6.  The Bundesrat points out that in the light of predominantly effective competition in the market for scientific information, public intervention is advisable only in demonstrably necessary cases and with as low in intensity as possible.

In the view of the Bundesrat, the co-financing of research infrastructures (in particular “digital repositories”) announced by the Commission does raise the fundamental question of the extent to which the supply of information is a public duty. This question should receive particular attention within the framework of the discussion process now launched by the Commission....

Also see the IPA press release accompanying the translation (May 24, 2007).  Excerpt:

IPA welcomes the statement by the Bundesrat. Says IPA Secretary General Jens Bammel: “IPA appreciates the balanced arguments and constructive tone chosen by the Bundesrat. Open access is a great opportunity which must be explored. At the same time care must be taken that we do not lose what is in fact working so well in other business models. This debate should be conducted in a measured way, based on sound arguments and empirical facts reflecting the high standards of academic debate in the journals themselves. The Bundesrat statement is a welcome contribution to this debate.“

Adds Jens Bammel: “The principle must be that business models for publishing scientific information should not be mandated by governments but should prove their own value and sustainability in the marketplace, and with the researchers how freely chose the most appropriate journal for each article.”

Comments. For background, the Bundesrat was discussing the EC's Communication on access to scientific information in the digital age, February 15, 2007.  For my thoughts on the same EC Communication, see SOAN for March 2, 2007,

1. First I thank the IPA for making and circulating this English translation.
2. The good news for OA supporters is that the Bundesrat endorses the goal of OA, more or less ("The call for the freest possible, immediate and open access to information corresponds with the aim of the EU to increase the competitiveness of the European economy.")
3. The good news in a minor key is that the Bundesrat's reservations about OA are based on misunderstandings.  There's hope that we can educate the members and counteract the publisher lobbying whose effects show so strongly here.  On the other hand, the Bundesrat has already acted and the chances for reconsideration any time soon are slight.
4. OA needn't interfere with copyright.  If the Bundesrat objection ("the call for the freest possible, immediate and open access to scientific information may conflict with...copyright") is abstract, and includes sloppy or careless implementations of OA, then it's true.  But in exactly the same way, TA publishing may also conflict with copyright.  If the claim is more specific, that certain OA proposals conflict with copyright, then the Bundesrat has not specified the proposals or the conflicts and we can only wait until it does so.  Moreover, the objection is contradicted by the Bundesrat's own acknowledgment in #5 that "the [EC] Communication does not regard changes, in particular limitations on copyright, as necessary to reach the goals...."
5. [T]he Bundesrat also points out that open access does not avoid the costs of knowledge processing and knowledge transfer, but rather shifts them from the users to the authors.... Where does one start with this bolus of misinformation?  First, no serious proponent of OA ever said that OA publishing was costless.  Second, the Bundesrat is apparently focused on fee-based OA journals.  But let's disentangle this.  Even fee-based OA journals do not usually shift costs to authors.  They charge publication fees but the fees are usually paid by funders or employers, not by authors out of pocket; and many fee-based journals will waive the fees in cases of economic hardship.  Beyond this, most OA journals do not even charge fees.  And beyond this, the EC Communication was not even talking about OA journals.  It was talking about OA repositories, which never charge fees.
6. The Bundesrat points out that in the light of predominantly effective competition in the market for scientific information.... This is an unfunny joke that could only have been written by a publisher lobbyist.
7. Finally, Jens Bammel's argument that we should let the market decide which models to adopt is easily answered.  Scientific research and publication are permeated by government spending and government policies, and do not represent a market in any ordinary sense. In Europe, as in the US and around the world, most scientific research is funded by taxpayers, most scientists work at public institutions and are paid by taxpayers, and most subscriptions to subscription-based journals are bought by public institutions and paid by taxpayers. If publishers really mean that government money and policymaking should keep out of this sector, then they should say so. But they would go bankrupt under such a rule. What they really want is the present arrangement of government subsidies for the work they publish, government subsidies for their own subscription fees, and double-payments by taxpayers who want access. (That's a market?)