Open Access News

Although the study was an independent one and has been published as the basis for consultation, from which policy decisions may subsequently follow, the Commission’s own press release did not mention that the study was independent, and thus implied that its conclusions and recommendations were supported by the Commission....

We are concerned at the suggestion that the EC should mandate self-archiving for the results of EC-funded research. The primary output of most research is data; in their raw form (before any third party has invested in making it usable and retrievable through a database) we fully support the view that such data should indeed, be freely available. The same could be said of any project reports submitted to the funder. However, bringing to the market, through a reputable journal, one or more articles which describe and interpret the findings is a costly business. Great care is necessary to ensure that any alternative free access does not undermine the journals in which scholars wish to publish their work....Different time delays of up to a year or even longer may be necessary, depending on whether the subject is a rapidlymoving one, and on the frequency of publication of the journal; a fixed period should not be arbitrarily imposed by the research funder....

Where the article is made freely available by the publisher (whether in a wholly or partly Open Access journal, or as a special arrangement with the funder) it is preferable that users have access to the version on the publisher’s site where it will include all the functionality added by the publisher, such as links to cited articles and supplementary materials. In no circumstances should the funder or any other third party take the author’s manuscript and ‘re-publish’ it with functionality which competes with that added by the publisher....

The authors appear to recognise (page 71) that, once all or most of a journal’s content was easily accessible in free archives, journal subscriptions would be adversely affected. We are already finding that, where this is the case (e.g. in physics and related disciplines) downloads on the publisher’s own site are falling dramatically as usage migrates to the free site. While librarians do not yet see free archives as a substitute for subscriptions – they would need to contain near to 100% of a journal’s content for this to be the case – they do already see usage as an important driver of cancellation decisions. We therefore fear that it can only be a matter of time before cancellations follow.

Comment. I've often replied to the concern that mandated self-archiving will harm journal subscriptions. But to recap quickly: on the one hand, all the evidence to date suggests that there is no harm, even in fields where the rate of self-archiving approaches 100%. And on the other hand, even if there will be harm, the public interest in public access to publicly-funded research takes priority over the economic interests of a private-sector industry. The ALPSP response emphasizes the fear of economic harm to journals, but doesn't even address the second fork in this two-prong debate, why the economic prosperity of publishers (even if proved to be at stake in these policies) should trump the public interest. As I put it in SOAN for 11/2/04, "publishers who object to [national OA policies] are defending the remarkable proposition that they should control access to research conducted by others, written up by others, and funded by taxpayers."