1. OPEN ACCESS A PERSPECTIVE From the AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR MICROBIOLOGY

2. WHY AM I HERE I Hold/Held research grants from the NIH, DOE, USDA, NSF I have an active research program I have published over 200 primary research papers in peer reviewed journals I am an author and consumer of the scientific literature I have been Treasurer of the American Society for Microbiology for 8 years I am currently Chair of the Publications Board of the American Society for Microbiology I am currently Chair of the PMC Advisory Committee

3. UNCHALLENGED THESES 1. The Federal Govt. pays for the research therefore its availability should be free. Not True: At state universities, the state has a major investment in the cost of research. Private foundations and industry underwrite significant research costs. 2. Because the Federal Govt. pays a fraction of the cost of publication (maybe), there should only be one payer, the author. 3. There is no effect on Professional Societies. Nonsense: If left unchallenged it states that the consumer has no responsibility in insuring access. This policy sets a dangerous and chilling precedent. Many of the consumers of this research are not US taxpayers. For Professional Societies it could be survival.

4. THE EFFECT ON PROFESSIONAL SOCIETIES Size is highly variable, e.g. 100’s to 1,000’s ASM is >42,000 Adhere to concept of peer review and maintenance of scientific standards The context of science goes beyond publications Income from two sources: Meetings Publications

5. THE COST OF PUBLISHING Total MS received (9 primary journals) Cost of Publishing ~ $17,000,000 - $18,000,000 per yr. * All Journals have 142 Eds Offices ^ Nearly 60% of submissions are rejected, but they entail considerable dollar cost as well as personnel cost 2002%>2003%>2004%>2005Acc. Total139208.11505212.0168553.81749341.7

6. JOURNAL PAGES PUBLISHED 2000-2005 2000*†2001*†♦2002*†♦!2003*†♦!2004*†♦!2005*†♦! 51,18452,90454,71658,15863,38068,630 (8.1 Avg. L) *Large Format. †Miniprint. ♦Wider line spacing. !Includes letters and miscellaneous items. Review Journals: 868626740724814696

7. DOMESTIC vs. FOREIGN % Domestic Subm. % Acc 39.05% 48.37% % Foreign Subm. % Acc 60.95% 51.63%

8. INTEGRITY OF SOCIETY PUBLICATIONS Generally volunteer scientists Peer review High standards Importance of copyright in principle The display of content

9. COMPARISON: ASM/PMC TOTAL COMPLETED REQUESTS 2003 -2005 Total PMCTotal ASMTotal Completed Requests Total – 033,028,51955,159,658 Total – 0412,104,470100,946,878 Total – 0517,680,449126,086,604 Google Usage 2005 6,695,970 Are you getting your money’s worth?

10. TRENDS IN ASM PUBLICATIONS Personal subscriptions declining at steady pace Institutional subscriptions are declining Print subscriptions rapidly declining Implications for societal finances and publication quality

11. EFFORTS BY THE ASM Post before publishing/A competitive thing When to be free and where to view content Primary Journals content free at 6 mo. in 2003 - Philosophy Primary Journals content free at 4 mo. in 2006 – Philosophy Review Journals free at one year Effect on financials, monitored carefully Prepared to change course Outsourced content, PMCI

12. PUBLISHING COSTS MONEY 1. The Federal Govt. pays but a fraction. 2. ERGO: Everyone needs to pay. 3. The “context” within which science is conducted requires support, thus scientific publications provided by professional societies are essential to both the conduct and integrity of the scientific enterprise.

13. CONTEXT an ASM Perspective 1. Membership Programs^ 2. Publications Programs: Journals, ASM News and Books* 3. Education Programs^ 4. Public & Scientific Affairs^ 5. International^ 6. Communications^ 7. Meetings* * Generates Income ^ Consumes Income

14. SUMMARY Society Journals, too important to loose Biological Sciences, a highly fractured discipline More Publications in biological sciences & medicine than chemistry, physics, psychology and economics combined Society Journal guarantee standards Society Journal, peer review and integrity of the process Essential source of income Supports the context within which science is performed Dangers of a legislative approach – A cautionary note for all