1 1 SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION SPARC EUROPE Myths and Realities: Open Access Business Models David Prosser SPARC Europe Director

2 2 The Situation Today – Dissatisfaction at All Levels Authors Their work is not seen by all their peers – they do not get the recognition they desire Despite the fact they often have to pay page charges, colour figure charges, reprint charges, etc. Often the rights they have given up in exchange for publication mean there are things that they cannot do with their own work Readers They cannot view all the research literature they need – they are less effective Libraries Cannot satisfy the information needs of their users Society We all lose out if the communication channels are not optimal.

3 3 SPARC Europe Scholarly Publishing & Academic Resources Coalition Formed in 2002 following the success of SPARC (launched in 1998 by the US Association of Research Libraries) Encourages partnership between libraries, academics, societies and responsible publishers Currently focused on STM, but coverage expanding Has over 110 members in 14 countries (and is growing) By acting together the members can influence the future of scholarly publishing

4 4 A Road Map – The Budapest Open Access Initiative Two complementary strategies: Self-Archiving: Scholars should be able to deposit their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives which conform to Open Archives Initiative standards Open-Access Journals: Journals will not charge subscriptions or fees for online access. Instead, they should look to other sources to fund peer-review and publication (e.g., publication charges)

5 5 Open Access What is it? Call for free, unrestricted access on the public internet to the literature that scholars give to the world without expectation of payment. Why? Widen dissemination, accelerate research, enrich education, share learning among rich & poor nations, enhance return on taxpayer investment in research. How? Use existing funds to pay for dissemination, not access.

6 6 How the pieces work together Author ContentServices Reader Institutional Repositories Disciplinary Repositories Interoperability Standards Registration e.g.: by institutions Certification e.g.: peer review Awareness e.g.: search tools, linking Archiving e.g.: by library

7 7 Myth: ‘We Don’t Need Open Access!’ " In Europe and the USA, however, access is already very open, and it is a myth that researchers and private individuals cannot obtain STM [Science, Technical, Medical] articles easily." Karen Hunter, Senior Vice President, Strategy, Elsevier, Learned Publishing, Vol. 18, pp.51-55, 2005

8 8

9 9 Myth: ‘We Don’t Need Open Access!’ The average UK university library subscribes to approximately 8000 peer-reviewed journals. There are between 15,000 to 24,000 peer- reviewed titles in total. So, the average UK university has access to between a third and a half of all titles. Figures are higher for some large publishers with massive market dominance. Inter-library loan and pay-per-view are available, but these are no subsitute for the immediate online access of open access.

Myth: ‘Open Access Encourages Low Quality’ "If you are receiving potential payment for every article submitted there is an inherent conflict of interest that could threaten the quality of the peer review system and so on" Oral evidence to UK House of Commons Science & Technology Inquiry, March 1st 2004, Sir Crispin Davis (CEO, Reed Elsevier)

Myth: ‘Open Access Encourages Low Quality’ Journals are made by their reputation – if they get a reputation of accepting low-quality papers then authors will not submit their papers and so they will not survive. Evidence from ISI is that the impact factors of open access journals are comparable to those of subscription journals, e.g., New Journal of Physics, 3 rd highest IF of all IOP Journals Arthritis Research & Therapy, IF of 5.03 (2 nd of 21 titles in the rheumatology field) Breast Cancer Research, IF of 2.93, placing it on even footing with its direct competitor, Breast Cancer Research & Treatment, which was established more than 20 years ago. BioMedCentral have an average rejection rate of over 50% Traditional publishers justify subscription price increases by increases in number of papers published!

The Power of Open Access – Self Archiving For 72% of papers published in the Astrophysical Journal free versions of the paper are available (mainly through ArXiv) These 72% of papers are, on average, cited twice as often as the remaining 28% that do not have free versions. Self-archiving gives authors an advantage, even for journals where ‘everybody already has access’! Figures from Greg Schwarz

The Power of Open Access – Journals Limnology and Oceanography, published by the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography Uses hybrid model to offer authors the chance to purchase open access Open Access papers published in 2004 have been downloaded almost 4 times more often than non-open access papers For papers published in 2003, 199 of the 200 most-downloaded papers were open access

Myth: ‘Societies will be destroyed by Open Access’ “A number of the smaller learned societies would be unlikely to survive without their publishing income and the work of the larger ones would be reduced.” Written evidence to UK S&T Inquiry, February 2004, The Royal Society

Myth: ‘Societies will be Destroyed by Open Access’ Some societies do make significant ‘surpluses’ from publishing. However, many do not, and their activities would not be threatened by a transfer to open access. For example: An ALPSP and Blackwell’s survey showed that 1/3 of societies asked did not make a surplus and of those that do, for the majority the surplus contributes less than 20% of the society’s total revenue. Some very large societies manage to engage in extensive programmes without any income from publishing – e.g., the American Physical Society, which operates its publishing programme at cost. Even in an open access environment it is still possible to make a surplus – open access is not anti-commerce – but the levels may be lower than it in the current model. A greater threat to societies may be from ‘Big Deals’ from large commercial publishers squeezing them out of the library market.

Myth: ‘Societies will be Destroyed by Open Access’ Some of the most interesting experiments in open access have come from societies: Indian Academy of Sciences has made their 11 journals available free online A number of society publishers are transforming their closed access journals into open access journals: Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (PNAS) Oxford University Press Company of Biologists American Physiological Society Florida Entomological Society Entomological Society of America Journal of Experimental Botany American Society of Limnology and Oceanography

Myth: ‘Authors from Transitional and Developing Countries Will Not be Able to Publish in Open Access’ “The author-charge is a barrier to publication which will favour richer countries and organisations and make it difficult to publish a journal with authors from, say, Eastern Europe and the Developing World.” Written evidence to UK S&T Inquiry, February 2004, Blackwell Publishing

Myth: ‘Authors from Transitional and Developing Countries Will Not be Able to Publish in Open Access’ Many publishers who operate under publication charges waive the fees to those (from whatever countries) who cannot pay. Not all open access journals are based on publication charges, e.g., the Indian Academy of Sciences makes no charge to authors. No charge to authors or readers for Physical Review Special Topics - Accelerators and Beams (Many others in Could the organisations that currently arrange access to selected developing countries shift to arranging payment of publication charges? Institutional repositories work with open access journals so there will always be a way to get good research into the hands of the world-wide community.

A Note on Costs “Current Open Access Models would penalize specialized research institutions with a large article production” Magaly Bascones Dominguez, ELAG 2005, CERN

A Note on Costs Journal publishing is a $7billion a year industry. A move to Open Access would call for the redistribution of this money to promote dissemination, not access. Costs of production may be reduced (Wellcome Trust Report – 30% reduction) and increased competition may reduce prices and create efficiencies However, there will be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ when viewed at an institute-by-institute level.

A Note on Costs – ‘Publication Costs are Research Costs’ In a highly productive year (e.g. 2000), CERN publishes 2250 peer- reviewed papers Assume all these papers are published in open access journals that charged CHF 3750 per paper. (Approx. $3000 per paper, cf. Springer) Total cost to CERN:CHF 8.5 million BUT, Total CERN budget (2004):CHF million So, to ensure that all its papers appeared in open access journals it would cost CERN, at most, 0.64% of its annual budget! (The Wellcome Trust has estimated that for the biomedical research it funds the cost would be 1-2% of total research costs.)

Open Access – Appealing to All the Major Stakeholders To the funders of researcher – both as a public service and as an increased return on their investment in research To the authors – as it gives wider dissemination and impact To readers – as it gives them access to all primary literature, making the most important ‘research tool’ more powerful To editors and reviewers – as they feel their work is more valued To the libraries – as it allows them to meet the information needs of their users To the institutions – as it increases their presence and prestige To small and society publishers – as it gives them a survival strategy and fits with their central remit

…And When we have Arrived! “ The public good [made] possible is the world-wide electronic distribution of the peer-reviewed journal literature and completely free and unrestricted access to it by all scientists, scholars, teachers, students, and other curious minds. ” Budapest Open Access Initiative, Feb. 14, 2002 Contact SPARC Europe: