1 Scientific publications: A key factor of the European Research Area Nicole Dewandre Head of Unit “Scientific advice and governance” Directorate “Science and society” DG Research-European Commission.

2 society/pdf/scientific-publication-study_en.pdf Outline  Introduction  Study  Next steps

3  Introduction Rationale  Significant public investment in research.  Certification, dissemination and archiving: key functions for ERA  Impact on resource allocation: careers and project funding

4  Introduction  Electronic Revolution  Lisbon strategy Background

5  Study Aim:  Assess evolutions  Discussion desirability of EU-action

6  Study Methodology:  Literature survey  Data collection for economic analyses  Consultation of stakeholders

7  Study Results: Market “constants”  Essential channel for dissemination of scientific knowledge.  Dominant model: reader- pay (or library-pay) model.  Significant fixed costs in publication (‘first-copy costs’).  Many publishers in the market. Two big groups: For- profits (FP) and Not-for-profits (NFP), which include learned societies and university presses.  Some publishers have grown very fast, through: (i) new journal introduction; (ii) running journals from learned societies; (iii) mergers.

8  Study Results: Prices 1 Steep increase (300% beyond inflation)  Slower increase of prices  Bundling strategies  75-95:  95+:

9  Study Results: Prices 2  More differences between domains than between types of publishers.  FP: 180% more expensive than NFP for given domain, age and citation count.  10% more cites than average of domain: –NFP: 1.45% more expensive. –FP: 2.49% more expensive.

10  Study Impact of Electronic Revolution  Fall in dissemination costs but one-off (fixed) transition cost.  High fixed cost but low marginal cost of new services (citation data, cross references, …).  Increased returns to scale but also lower entry costs.  Continued dominance of library-pay model, but some experimentation, e.g. author-pay, pay per download.  Continued growth in market share of big FP publishers (through M&A’s), even if entry of new publishers too.  Use of ‘big deal’ contracts.  Formation of ‘library consortia’.

11  Study New techonologies and access  Explosion of dissemination possibilities.  Need to distinguish various access dimensions: (i) access to unpublished research; (ii) access to recently published research; (iii) open-access journals; (iv) access to stock of knowledge; (v) long-term preservation.

12  Study Recommendations:  Guarantee public access to publicly-funded results shortly after publication.  Aim at a ‘level-playing field’ for business models.  Develop ‘extended quality’ rankings of scientific journals.  Guarantee perennial access to scholarly journal digital archives.  Foster interoperable tools to improve knowledge visibility, accessibility and dissemination. Access issues

13  Study Recommendations:  Promote pro-competitive pricing strategies.  Scrutinize future significant mergers.  Promote the development of electronic publications. Market dynamics

14  Study Recommendations Follow up  Copyright provisions  Economic analysis of alternative forms of dissemination  Technological developments  Setting-up an advisory committee  Further investigation

15  Next Steps   SINAPSE: Scientific Publications community Registration:  FP7  Digital libraries  Brussels, 19&20 Dec  Consultation:  Conference:  Policy follow up:

16 Within FP7 Pilot practice at FP level Policy discussion within ERA Accompanying measures

17 Within FP7… Across FP: special clause ?, special fund ?, register. In « Ideas », impetus from the scientific council of ERC? In « Capacities », infrastructures In « Capacities », science and society, more investigation/debate

18 Concerns-Issues Multiple hats of stakeholders (Commission, universities, business sector) Redistribution of revenues generated (NFP, FP) Competitiveness of commercial publishing Readers more numerous than authors Explosion of content increases the need for filters

19 Conclusion Status quo is not an option Stakes are high and what is at risk is more easily measurable and quantifiable than what is to be gained Innovation path delicate and sensitive, but…unavoidable!