Ada Lovelace Day

About The Authors

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson

Suw Charman-Anderson is a social software consultant and writer who specialises in the use of blogs and wikis behind the firewall. With a background in journalism, publishing and web design, Suw is now one of the UK’s best known bloggers, frequently speaking at conferences and seminars.

Her personal blog is Chocolate and Vodka, and yes, she’s married to Kevin.

Email Suw

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson

Kevin Anderson is a freelance journalist and digital strategist with more than a decade of experience with the BBC and the Guardian. He has been a digital journalist since 1996 with experience in radio, television, print and the web. As a journalist, he uses blogs, social networks, Web 2.0 tools and mobile technology to break news, to engage with audiences and tell the story behind the headlines in multiple media and on multiple platforms.

From 2009-2010, he was the digital research editor at The Guardian where he focused on evaluating and adapting digital innovations to support The Guardian’s world-class journalism. He joined The Guardian in September 2006 as their first blogs editor after 8 years with the BBC working across the web, television and radio. He joined the BBC in 1998 to become their first online journalist outside of the UK, working as the Washington correspondent for BBCNews.com.

And, yes, he’s married to Suw.

E-mail Kevin.

Member of the Media 2.0 Workgroup
Dark Blogs Case Study

Case Study 01 - A European Pharmaceutical Group

Find out how a large pharma company uses dark blogs (behind the firewall) to gather and disseminate competitive intelligence material.


free page hit counter



hit counter script


All content © Kevin Anderson and/or Suw Charman

Interview series:
at the FASTforward blog. Amongst them: John Hagel, David Weinberger, JP Rangaswami, Don Tapscott, and many more!

Corante Blog

Monday, February 19th, 2007

Open publishing - Open access in the scientific world

Posted by Suw Charman-Anderson

The creative world is not the only one grappling with the implications of open publishing. In the scientific world there has been great debate about ‘open access publishing’…

And here I run afoul of terminology. I’ve been using the term ‘open publishing’ to refer to the process of publishing your materials for free online, whatever those materials may be, at the same time as you publish a physical version that can be bought. When you start digging into Wikipedia, though, it seems that for some people ‘open publishing’ means the ‘process of creating news or other content that is transparent to the readers‘. I was going to cover that under the heading ‘open writing’, although it may be more accurately described as ‘open source journalism’ or ‘collaborative writing’ or ‘distributed journalism’ or ‘networked journalism’ or, frankly, any one of a whole number of different phrases.

I think this illustrates just how little consensus there is on these issues. There are so many shades of grey that people are tempted to think up new terms for each one, but I’m going to stick with these two:

  • Open publishing - making commercially published materials freely available online under a permissive licence that allows for at least some reuse.
  • Open access publishing - making scientific and medical research papers freely available online under a permissive licence that allows for at least some reuse.

Others may not agree with this, and certainly the issues are more complex than those definitions suppose, but they’re going to have to do for now. We can discuss nuances in the comments!

Good places to get started with open access are three of the Wikipedia articles: self-archiving, open access publishing, and open access journal.

Dr Ben Goldacre recently wrote in his Bad Science column (which is published by The Guardian, and which he self-archives):

There are some things which are so self-evidently right and good that it’s hard to imagine how anyone could disagree with you. The “open access” academic journal movement is one of those things. It’s a no-brainer. Academic literature should be freely available: developing countries need access; part time tinkering thinkers like you deserve full access; journalists and the public can benefit; and most importantly of all, you’ve already paid for much of this stuff with your taxes, they are important new ideas from humanity, and morally, you are entitled to them.

The parallels between this concept and the one underpinning the Creative Commons/Free Culture movement are fairly obvious. It’s not just culture that wants to be free, but also information.

The point of friction between author and publisher, though, is slightly different. In the cultural world, publishers get hung up on controlling their intellectual property rights, and in particular about both file sharing and commercial piracy. But the arguments hinge around one economic question: will open publishing bring the publisher (and thence the author) more sales and, therefore, make them more money?

Both author and publisher want to make money, and their needs are relatively well aligned. They both want the author’s work to be popular because popularity tends to result in higher sales, and it’s fairly obvious that releasing your work for free online increases the number of people who have access to it and thus the number of potential buyers. As mentioned in a previous post, the main debate is about the details of whether open publishing cannibalises or increases sales.

Note: The same works for music and movies, even if those industries haven’t quite figured it out yet.

With open access, the needs of the author and of the publisher are not aligned. The author of a scientific research paper wants their paper to be widely read and cited by other scientists. They don’t get paid for writing, there’s no fee from the publisher for their work - any increase in income comes indirectly from being a successfully published and widely cited authority in your field, and thus being able to command better salaries or larger grants. So the author is not interested in being paid for his or her writing.

The science publisher, on the other hand, is very interested in people paying for access to their journal. It’s how they make their money. Thus they see open publishing as a threat - who would pay to access their content if it’s available for free online?

This leads to two opposing publishing models: Reader Pays and Author Pays. The former is the traditional ‘we publish it, you pay for it if you want to read it’ model. The latter has been adopted by some open access journals, such as the Public Library of Science, the Journal of Medical Internet Research, and BioMed Central, which charge authors some sort of fee in order to cover their costs.

There is at least one other way, though, which could be called Third Party Pays, where the costs of publishing are subsidised by an institution, or covered by income from another source such as advertising, grants, etc. Some are even run by volunteers, thus incurring minimal costs.

According to Peter Suber, only 47% of open access journals charge authors a fee. He says:

Only a minority of existing OA journals actually used the most-studied and most-discussed business model for OA journals –charging author-side fees. (Let’s call these “fee-based” OA journals.) The majority of OA journals turned out to use business models that had rarely been acknowledged, let alone studied. (Let’s call these “no-fee” OA journals.) We thought we understood OA journals but we only understood a subset, and the greater part of the whole was still largely unknown.

I wish I could tell you how many different ways the no-fee journals have found to pay their bills, and which methods work best in which disciplines and countries. But I can’t. No one has done the studies yet. A few ships have approached the coastline of this land mass but we haven’t come close to penetrating the interior or producing a map.

As Peter says, it would be interesting to find out a lot more about the business models for the 53% of journals that aren’t charging their authors - the creative industries could potentially learn a lot from the publishing models used by their science publishing colleagues.

But the science publishing industry - where I started my postgraduate career, I have to mention - is not happy with open access. John Wiley & Sons, Reed Elsevier and the American Chemical Society are three of the biggest members of the Association of American Publishers, which has hired ‘PR pitbull’ Eric Dezenhall to try and swing the debate their way. This has been seen as an act of desperation and an attempt to derail real debate in favour of soundbite marketing tactics.

The threat is, of course, economic. If scientists prefer free open access journals to reader-pays journals, then the publishers’ business model is threatened. Some of the non-economic objections to open access, such as accusations that it does not support peer review, are clearly nonsense. Peer review - the process by which a paper is distributed amongst other experts in the author’s discipline so that they can critique it - requires only someone to arrange it and there is no good reason why an open access journal cannot peer review as well as a traditional journal.

Just like the cultural world, though, the genie is out of the bottle and sunning himself on a beach in Rio. Open access is not going to go away, and traditional publishers need to adapt or die. It’s scary, and the shape of future scientific business models is not clear, but there’s no escaping change.

Technorati Tags: , ,

Email a copy of 'Open publishing - Open access in the scientific world' to a friend

EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.



Separate multiple entries with a comma. Maximum 5 entries.





E-Mail Image Verification

Loading ... Loading ...

7 Responses to “Open publishing - Open access in the scientific world”

  1. Roberto Galoppini Says:

    Charging authors doesn’t make any sense to me: there is clearly space for third parties pay approach, and advertising is definitely the easiest way.
    Indeed it needs expertise, so I totally agree with you, publishers need to adapt, I do NEVER pay to download a scientific paper, you know why? Citizens already paid for that, at least here in Europe, what’s the point to pay it twice?

  2. Jack Lee Says:

    Dear Suw,

    This is a very useful and informed summary of the open access movement and its impact on the publishing community.

    I have a page on our website which may be useful for your readers which provides links to websites which offer open access resources for medical and health professionals. (see http://www.paradigm-redshift.com/openaccess.htm)

    We have recently completed a detailed review of publishers in the medical sector and their current stance to open access publishing. I’d be happy to discuss this with any of your readers who may be interested.

    Jack Lee

  3. Suw Says:

    Thanks Jack. I’d be interested in knowing the business models of those journals that don’t use either ‘author pays’ or ‘reader pays’ models. Just how does ‘third-party pays’ work?

  4. Subbiah Arunachalam Says:

    There are about 100 STM journals in India which are open access. Indeed almost all of them are ‘hybrid’ journals, meaning they have both a print version and an electronic ‘open access’ version. The Indian Academy of Sciences publishes 11 journals, all of which are open access. There is a (nominal) subscription fee for the print version, but Fellows of the Academy get the relevant journal at no cost. The Academy as well as the Indian National Science Academy, which also publishes a few OA journals, get annual grants from the Government of India. The journals receive many paid advertisements. MedKnow, a private firm, publishes 40 professional journals on behalf their publishers. Dr D K Sahu, the CEO of MedKnow, tells us that after turning OA the Journal of Postraduate Medicine has improved tremendously: More papers are received and more are coming from the West; More papers are visited, downloaded and cited. The hypothetical impact factor of the journal has risen pretty fast. In short, it is win-win for all concerned.

  5. Maryse de la Giroday Says:

    Hi Suw! (One of the DMU students here) and I hadn’t really thought of these issues from this perspective before and it helps shed some light on a couple of recent odd experiences…
    (a) One of the other students is doing a research project on robots and I was trying to help her get a copy of an article through a library system…but, the magazine has an embargo of a year for published articles…I gather that you can read it for free after the year is up otherwise, you have to pay…(I checked 2 different academic libraries and she checked others)…it seems like a pay-per-view model for the first year and then a standard subscription model after that…
    (b) two new journals about nanotechnology have appeared…the first issues for each journal are free…one you can download as a PDF but the other, which is being published by Elsevier, can’t be downloaded…you can print it off or read it offline via your browser…so, you get access but you can’t get the digital files…I gather both publishers are planning to ask for money at some point…anyway, I hadn’t seen the technology that Elsevier is employing for their first issue before this…they’ve really mimicked the feel of a magazine, right down to turning pages…

    This whole thing is certainly causing me to review some of my assumptions about access to research materials.

    Regards,
    Maryse

  6. Suw Says:

    Subbiah, thanks for your comment. It’s really interesting to see how OA actually helps promote a journal and attract higher calibre submissions. My guess is that researchers in countries such as India also really benefit from having their work easily accessible from countries worldwide, so as you say, it’s win-win.

    Maryse, hi! The reader pays model is the traditional model but when your insitution pays the subscription, the cost is invisible to you as a student or researcher. Of course, not everyone who would benefit from access is a part of an institution, and institutions can’t afford to buy subscriptions to every journal, so the model starts to break down from your point of view when you want to access a journal for which you have to pay. And, as you’ve found, your research suffers as a result, and I personally think that society suffers too, because if you can’t access the information you need you’re prevented from fulfilling your potential.

  7. Henry Hagedorn Says:

    Thanks for your article on open access, Suw. Regarding the “no fee’ journals mentioned by Peter Suber, I am editor of one. It is the Journal of Insect Science that has been publishing peer reviewed scientific papers for 7 years. JIS is open access, free to readers, authors and institutions. University libraries, first the University of Arizona and now the University of Wisconsin, have published JIS.

    All of the costs of publishing this journal come from the university library, and, ultimately of course, the taxpayer. In my opinion, this is part of the argument that the taxpayer supports the research that is reported in scientific journals and should have free access to it. The funds that researchers receive from federal agencies help support universities and other research institutions in the form of “overhead costs”. Some of this money is used to support the libraries in these institutions. It seems logical, therefore, for libraries to use these funds to publish academic journals as by doing so they help to ensure that the public has access to the results of academic research. It is a powerful way for academic institutions to educate the public.