Open Access News

Recent technological advances are leading to dramatic changes in the exchange of knowledge, and particularly the publication of journals. One of the most important changes is the publication of articles and papers on the world wide web, rather than solely in the form of printed journals. Most journals now have electronic versions on the world wide web and this has increased access to scientific papers....The Royal Society welcomes the exploration of these new developments where the aim is to improve the exchange of knowledge between researchers and with wider society. At present, all papers appearing in Royal Society journals can be accessed free of charge 12 months after their publication. However, the Society believes that the approach of some organisations to the 'open access debate' is threatening to hinder rather than promote the exchange of knowledge between researchers. This is partly because some participants in the debate appear to be trying to pursue another aim, namely to stop commercial publishers from making profits from the publication of research that has been funded from the public purse. While some companies do appear to be making excessive profits from the publication of researchers' papers, this should not be the primary factor guiding future developments in the exchange of knowledge between researchers....Among the potential dangers are that researchers will stop submitting papers or subscribing to existing journals, particularly if they choose only to deposit papers in repositories and archives....Any viable new open access model must adequately cover the costs of high quality, independent peer review....Furthermore, models in which researchers are charged to submit or publish papers introduce a new disincentive to the exchange of knowledge. Such financial barriers will be more acute for researchers with the least amount of funds, such as those at the very early or late stages of their careers or in developing countries....To inform discussion, the Royal Society recommends a thorough study of proposed new models, including an assessment of the likely costs and benefits to all. Funders should resist the temptation to act before being informed by such a study, and should not introduce policies that force researchers to adopt new models that are untried and untested.

For more, see (1) the Royal Society's press release on today's position statement, (2) its previous position statement on the RCUK policy from July 2005, and (3) its written testimony to the House of Commons Scientific and Technology Commmittee inquiry into scientific publications and OA from June 2004.

Comment. Five quick comments. (1) OA is compatible with publisher revenue, even profit. For example, BMC is for-profit OA publisher. The RS misunderstands the purpose of OA, which is to improve access to science, not to harm publishers. As I put it in my OA Overview, "The purpose of the campaign for OA is the constructive one of providing OA to a larger and larger body of literature, not the destructive one of putting non-OA journals or publishers out of business. The consequences may or may not overlap (this is contingent) but the purposes do not overlap." (2) There is no danger that researchers will stop submitting their work to peer-reviewed journals and submit them only to repositories that perform no peer review. The professional rewards of research attach to peer-reviewed publication, not to unrefereed archiving. The OA movement has always been about OA to peer-reviewed research, not about bypassing peer review. It's possible that authors will stop submitting their work to non-OA peer-reviewed journals, and prefer OA peer-reviewed journals, but that's a very different and very welcome development. (3) The objection that OA journals discriminate against indigent authors has always been weak and was recently made even weaker by the discoveries that fewer than half of OA journals even charge author-side fees and that many more non-OA journals do so than OA journals. (4) The RS call for a study is oblivious to the many studies of OA that have already been undertaken. The draft RCUK policy in particular is based on the extensive hearings and evidence-gathering process conducted by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee in 2004 and summarized in its report, Scientific Publications: Free for All? The RS should know about this; it submitted a lengthy brief to the committee. (5) For my response to the RS objection that OA archiving will endanger journals, see my comment, earlier this morning, on the Australian news story on the RS statement, which I saw and blogged before I saw the RS statement itself.