It's clear from comments in multiple threads that misconceptions abound about open access and the "author pays" model for funding scientific publication. As a founder of Public Library of Science, a SF-based non-profit open access publisher, I would like to respond to these collective comments.
The biggest misconception is that the shift to open access is about a shift from "reader pays" to "author pays". While it may be easy to explain the difference between the two systems that way, the reality is that in either system, the money comes from the same place - the funding agenencies, universities and other research institutions that sponsor scientific research. In the current system they pay indirectly by providing acquisition funds to libraries, covering personal subscriptions in grants, and paying page charges for many journals. Under open access they would pay directly.
So the real question is not WHO pays, but rather how should these organizations pay publishers for the valuable services they provide? Should they use an outdated system in which an invaluable public resource - the published scientific and medical literature - becomes the exclusive private property of publishers and in which huge numbers of people are needlessly denied access to the latest scientific and medical knowledge? Or should they use a system that pays publishers a fair price for the services they provide, but where the finished product is freely available to all?
Evoking images of starving graduate students reaching into their own wallets to pay a greedy publisher for the right to publish the results of their many years labors misses the point completely, because these students will benefit tremendously from open access - not only because they will have something very few of them have today - comprehensive access to the literature that impinges upon their work - but also because the information will be far more useful once it is freed from the artificial barriers that make it difficult to search (very little of this literature is currently indexed in google) or use in other ways.
We obviously have to make sure that authors who do not have access to funds to cover publication costs are still able to publish their work. But this is not that difficult. Consider a scientist at a poor university in a developing country for whom a $1,500 publication charge would be a true hardship. If they publish their work in a fee-for-access journal - e.g. Nature - the global scientific community subsidizes this publication through their subscriptions to Nature. They do this willingly, because they want to read what this scientist has to say. This desire and willingness to subsidize their publication costs won't go away with a switch to open access. Open access journals like PLoS Biology already waive publication costs for authors who can not afford them, and we fully expect to be able to do this in perpetuity.
What's more, most of the scientists who can not afford to pay the costs of publishing in open access journals work at institutions that can not afford subscriptions to very many journals. Today, such authors end up in the absurd position of publishing in journals that they can not read! Those concerned about the lack of egalitarianism in publishing should be far more concerned about the tremendous and worsening imbalance in access to the published literature. Open access fixes this immediately!
Finally, some have expressed the concern that open access will degrade the quality of scientific journals by providing publishers with an economic incentive to lower their standards and publish papers simply to collect a publication fee. While there may indeed be journals that adopt such a strategy, potential authors will quickly realize this, and will be reluctant to publish their work in a journal with such a reputation. Any journal with an interest in attracting the best papers has to maintain an appropriately high standard no matter what their econonmic model.
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
University of California Berkeley
Re:Distribution Models and the 'net
on
Who Owns Science?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Its amazing, although unsurprising, that the head of Elsevier would say something so unbelieveably wrongheaded. The are certainly many articles that are not interesting to the general public (or, for that matter, many scientists). But to argue that the entire contents of the scientific literature is for use only by experts is undbelievably patronizing, and simply wrong.
By his reckoning, the people Haank deems worthy of reading the scientific literature consist mostly of scientists at wealthy institutions in the developed world.
People he deems unworthy of reading about the latest scientific research include scientists in poorer countries and at poor institutions in the developed world, physicians of all stripes across the globe, highschool and college students without access to major research libraries, and interested members of the public, such as someone recently diagnosed with cancer who wants to read about the latest research into treatment options that their tax dollars paid for.
This quote, and this attitude, perfectly summarize why Elsevier (or any other individual or organization) should not be able to control the scientific literature.
As one of the organizers of Public Library of Science, I'd like to respond.
From the outside, $1500 per article may seem like a lot. If you think of this as individual researchers digging into their own pockets to pay to publish the results of their research, sound a bit unreasonable. But that is not what we are proposing.
The reality is that it costs money to provide the services that authors expect from a top scientific journal: rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight, and high production standards. We (the scientific community and the institutions, funding agencies and taxpayers that support us) are already paying journals to provide this service - total annual expenditures on scientific journals are well in excess of $1 billion per year.
We are asking the funding agencies, universities and research institutions that support our work to recognize that the costs of publication are a fundamental part of the scientific research process. If they committed to directly paying journals to provide peer-review, editorial oversight and production (rather than indirectly as they do now) the latest scientific discoveries could be made freely available online to every scientist and physician or interested citizen in the world in comprehensive, searchable open archives of the scientific literature.
There is a growing consensus in the community that this is a sensible model (it is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and several major universities including the University of California and Harvard).
The system of giving away the copyrights to the original research reports and then paying to access them is woefully anachronistic. It costs more and it effectively deprives most of the world - including the people whose taxes paid for the research in the first place - from having any meaningful access to the results.
You are right to be concerned that $1500 is a steep price to pay for a student, or a scientist from a small university or poor country. We never want our publication charges to be a barrier to publication, and will publish any paper that our editors and reviewers deem to be appropriate for the journals, either by significantly reducing or waiving the charges. In addition, organization like the Soros Open Society Institute, are providing funds to help offset the costs of publication for scientists from developing countries.
I should also note that we expect the costs to decline significantly over time, as automated methods for peer-review develop, and as authors start to more widely use tools that allow for automatic conversion of documents to XML and properly formatted XML. In the end, the remaining costs will be primarily for editorial oversight, and authors will be able to choose the level that is appropriate for their work.
Your concern about conflicts of interest are unwarranted. There were certainly be journals that will, for a fee, publish anything that is sent to them. These already exist. However, nobody will want to publish their works in these journals since the citation will carry no significance. Why pay to publish in a journal that publishes anything when you can just post the article on the web for free? Many journals will still have a tremendous incentive to maintain high editorial standards, because this is something that scientists value.
Finally, you are correct that in fields like mathematics, computer science and physics, many works are already freely available. This, however, isn't true in biology and medicine, and thus initiatives like this are essential.
As one of the organizers of Public Library of Science, I'd like to respond.
From the outside, $1500 per article may seem like a lot. If you think of this as individual researchers digging into their own pockets to pay to publish the results of their research, sound a bit unreasonable. But that is not what we are proposing.
The reality is that it costs money to provide the services that authors expect from a top scientific journal: rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight, and high production standards. We (the scientific community and the institutions, funding agencies and taxpayers that support us) are already paying journals to provide this service - total annual expenditures on scientific journals are well in excess of $1 billion per year.
We are asking the funding agencies, universities and research institutions that support our work to recognize that the costs of publication are a fundamental part of the scientific research process. If they committed to directly paying journals to provide peer-review, editorial oversight and production (rather than indirectly as they do now) the latest scientific discoveries could be made freely available online to every scientist and physician or interested citizen in the world in comprehensive, searchable open archives of the scientific literature.
There is a growing consensus in the community that this is a sensible model (it is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and several major universities including the University of California and Harvard).
The system of giving away the copyrights to the original research reports and then paying to access them is woefully anachronistic. It costs more and it effectively deprives most of the world - including the people whose taxes paid for the research in the first place - from having any meaningful access to the results.
You are right to be concerned that $1500 is a steep price to pay for a student, or a scientist from a small university or poor country. We never want our publication charges to be a barrier to publication, and will publish any paper that our editors and reviewers deem to be appropriate for the journals, either by significantly reducing or waiving the charges. In addition, organization like the Soros Open Society Institute, are providing funds to help offset the costs of publication for scientists from developing countries.
I should also note that we expect the costs to decline significantly over time, as automated methods for peer-review develop, and as authors start to more widely use tools that allow for automatic conversion of documents to XML and properly formatted XML. In the end, the remaining costs will be primarily for editorial oversight, and authors will be able to choose the level that is appropriate for their work.
Your concern about conflicts of interest are unwarranted. There were certainly be journals that will, for a fee, publish anything that is sent to them. These already exist. However, nobody will want to publish their works in these journals since the citation will carry no significance. Why pay to publish in a journal that publishes anything when you can just post the article on the web for free? Many journals will still have a tremendous incentive to maintain high editorial standards, because this is something that scientists value.
Finally, you are correct that in fields like mathematics, computer science and physics, many works are already freely available. This, however, isn't true in biology and medicine, and thus initiatives like this are essential.
Slashdot Mirror
It's clear from comments in multiple threads that misconceptions abound about open access and the "author pays" model for funding scientific publication. As a founder of Public Library of Science, a SF-based non-profit open access publisher, I would like to respond to these collective comments.
The biggest misconception is that the shift to open access is about a shift from "reader pays" to "author pays". While it may be easy to explain the difference between the two systems that way, the reality is that in either system, the money comes from the same place - the funding agenencies, universities and other research institutions that sponsor scientific research. In the current system they pay indirectly by providing acquisition funds to libraries, covering personal subscriptions in grants, and paying page charges for many journals. Under open access they would pay directly.
So the real question is not WHO pays, but rather how should these organizations pay publishers for the valuable services they provide? Should they use an outdated system in which an invaluable public resource - the published scientific and medical literature - becomes the exclusive private property of publishers and in which huge numbers of people are needlessly denied access to the latest scientific and medical knowledge? Or should they use a system that pays publishers a fair price for the services they provide, but where the finished product is freely available to all?
Evoking images of starving graduate students reaching into their own wallets to pay a greedy publisher for the right to publish the results of their many years labors misses the point completely, because these students will benefit tremendously from open access - not only because they will have something very few of them have today - comprehensive access to the literature that impinges upon their work - but also because the information will be far more useful once it is freed from the artificial barriers that make it difficult to search (very little of this literature is currently indexed in google) or use in other ways.
We obviously have to make sure that authors who do not have access to funds to cover publication costs are still able to publish their work. But this is not that difficult. Consider a scientist at a poor university in a developing country for whom a $1,500 publication charge would be a true hardship. If they publish their work in a fee-for-access journal - e.g. Nature - the global scientific community subsidizes this publication through their subscriptions to Nature. They do this willingly, because they want to read what this scientist has to say. This desire and willingness to subsidize their publication costs won't go away with a switch to open access. Open access journals like PLoS Biology already waive publication costs for authors who can not afford them, and we fully expect to be able to do this in perpetuity.
What's more, most of the scientists who can not afford to pay the costs of publishing in open access journals work at institutions that can not afford subscriptions to very many journals. Today, such authors end up in the absurd position of publishing in journals that they can not read! Those concerned about the lack of egalitarianism in publishing should be far more concerned about the tremendous and worsening imbalance in access to the published literature. Open access fixes this immediately!
Finally, some have expressed the concern that open access will degrade the quality of scientific journals by providing publishers with an economic incentive to lower their standards and publish papers simply to collect a publication fee. While there may indeed be journals that adopt such a strategy, potential authors will quickly realize this, and will be reluctant to publish their work in a journal with such a reputation. Any journal with an interest in attracting the best papers has to maintain an appropriately high standard no matter what their econonmic model.
Michael Eisen, Ph.D.
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
University of California Berkeley
Co-Founder, Public Library of Science
By his reckoning, the people Haank deems worthy of reading the scientific literature consist mostly of scientists at wealthy institutions in the developed world.
People he deems unworthy of reading about the latest scientific research include scientists in poorer countries and at poor institutions in the developed world, physicians of all stripes across the globe, highschool and college students without access to major research libraries, and interested members of the public, such as someone recently diagnosed with cancer who wants to read about the latest research into treatment options that their tax dollars paid for.
This quote, and this attitude, perfectly summarize why Elsevier (or any other individual or organization) should not be able to control the scientific literature.
As one of the organizers of Public Library of Science, I'd like to respond.
From the outside, $1500 per article may seem like a lot. If you think of this as individual researchers digging into their own pockets to pay to publish the results of their research, sound a bit unreasonable. But that is not what we are proposing.
The reality is that it costs money to provide the services that authors expect from a top scientific journal: rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight, and high production standards. We (the scientific community and the institutions, funding agencies and taxpayers that support us) are already paying journals to provide this service - total annual expenditures on scientific journals are well in excess of $1 billion per year.
We are asking the funding agencies, universities and research institutions that support our work to recognize that the costs of publication are a fundamental part of the scientific research process. If they committed to directly paying journals to provide peer-review, editorial oversight and production (rather than indirectly as they do now) the latest scientific discoveries could be made freely available online to every scientist and physician or interested citizen in the world in comprehensive, searchable open archives of the scientific literature.
There is a growing consensus in the community that this is a sensible model (it is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and several major universities including the University of California and Harvard).
The system of giving away the copyrights to the original research reports and then paying to access them is woefully anachronistic. It costs more and it effectively deprives most of the world - including the people whose taxes paid for the research in the first place - from having any meaningful access to the results.
You are right to be concerned that $1500 is a steep price to pay for a student, or a scientist from a small university or poor country. We never want our publication charges to be a barrier to publication, and will publish any paper that our editors and reviewers deem to be appropriate for the journals, either by significantly reducing or waiving the charges. In addition, organization like the Soros Open Society Institute, are providing funds to help offset the costs of publication for scientists from developing countries.
I should also note that we expect the costs to decline significantly over time, as automated methods for peer-review develop, and as authors start to more widely use tools that allow for automatic conversion of documents to XML and properly formatted XML. In the end, the remaining costs will be primarily for editorial oversight, and authors will be able to choose the level that is appropriate for their work.
Your concern about conflicts of interest are unwarranted. There were certainly be journals that will, for a fee, publish anything that is sent to them. These already exist. However, nobody will want to publish their works in these journals since the citation will carry no significance. Why pay to publish in a journal that publishes anything when you can just post the article on the web for free? Many journals will still have a tremendous incentive to maintain high editorial standards, because this is something that scientists value.
Finally, you are correct that in fields like mathematics, computer science and physics, many works are already freely available. This, however, isn't true in biology and medicine, and thus initiatives like this are essential.
As one of the organizers of Public Library of Science, I'd like to respond. From the outside, $1500 per article may seem like a lot. If you think of this as individual researchers digging into their own pockets to pay to publish the results of their research, sound a bit unreasonable. But that is not what we are proposing. The reality is that it costs money to provide the services that authors expect from a top scientific journal: rigorous peer-review, editorial oversight, and high production standards. We (the scientific community and the institutions, funding agencies and taxpayers that support us) are already paying journals to provide this service - total annual expenditures on scientific journals are well in excess of $1 billion per year. We are asking the funding agencies, universities and research institutions that support our work to recognize that the costs of publication are a fundamental part of the scientific research process. If they committed to directly paying journals to provide peer-review, editorial oversight and production (rather than indirectly as they do now) the latest scientific discoveries could be made freely available online to every scientist and physician or interested citizen in the world in comprehensive, searchable open archives of the scientific literature. There is a growing consensus in the community that this is a sensible model (it is supported by the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and several major universities including the University of California and Harvard). The system of giving away the copyrights to the original research reports and then paying to access them is woefully anachronistic. It costs more and it effectively deprives most of the world - including the people whose taxes paid for the research in the first place - from having any meaningful access to the results. You are right to be concerned that $1500 is a steep price to pay for a student, or a scientist from a small university or poor country. We never want our publication charges to be a barrier to publication, and will publish any paper that our editors and reviewers deem to be appropriate for the journals, either by significantly reducing or waiving the charges. In addition, organization like the Soros Open Society Institute, are providing funds to help offset the costs of publication for scientists from developing countries. I should also note that we expect the costs to decline significantly over time, as automated methods for peer-review develop, and as authors start to more widely use tools that allow for automatic conversion of documents to XML and properly formatted XML. In the end, the remaining costs will be primarily for editorial oversight, and authors will be able to choose the level that is appropriate for their work. Your concern about conflicts of interest are unwarranted. There were certainly be journals that will, for a fee, publish anything that is sent to them. These already exist. However, nobody will want to publish their works in these journals since the citation will carry no significance. Why pay to publish in a journal that publishes anything when you can just post the article on the web for free? Many journals will still have a tremendous incentive to maintain high editorial standards, because this is something that scientists value. Finally, you are correct that in fields like mathematics, computer science and physics, many works are already freely available. This, however, isn't true in biology and medicine, and thus initiatives like this are essential.