Running head: OA, LIBRARIES AND SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING
Open Access, Libraries, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing
Kristin Boice
Abstract
Running scholarly presses as profit centers is becoming increasingly unsustainable as many are barely able to stay solvent in todays market economy. Under increasing financial pressures university presses are creating a bottleneck for the publishing of scholarly articles, making less of it available more slowly. By restricting access and limiting outlets for publication, todays commercially structured scholarly publishing system runs counter to the aims of scholarly publishingto circulate discourse and research findings through academic institutions and into the world. The open access movement is one response to a general failure of the for-profit scholarly publishing system. This paper looks at what it would mean to reconfigure scholarly publishing away from commerce and toward an open access model, and the potential role of libraries within an open access publishing system.
Open Access, Libraries, and the Future of Scholarly Publishing
In order to understand the effect of
Open Access (OA) on scholarly presses, an overview of OA and the current state
of the scholarly press will be outlined.
OA is a kind of access, not a
kind of business model, license, or content. Open-access literature is digital,
online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Free distribution via the internet and the consent of the author or
copyright-holder makes OA possible. OA involves scholarly and scientific
literature, so unlike most other creative fields, such as fiction writing,
music and movies, scholarly journals do not pay authors for their submissions.
Therefore, authors of scholarly works can consent to OA without fear of losing
revenue, and the controversies about OA in other creative fields to not carry
over to research literature. Although OA literature is accessed freely by
anyone, it is not free to produce even if it is less expensive than
conventionally published literature. The question is not whether scholarly
literature can be made costless, but whether there are better ways to pay the
bills than by charging readers and creating access barriers (Suber, 2004). Business
models for OA depend on how it is delivered.
There are two primary vehicles
for delivering OA to research articles: OA journals, and OA archives or
repositories, also referred to as Gold OA and Green OA, respectively. OA
archives or repositories make their contents freely available, but do not
perform any kind of peer review. Archives may belong to institutions such as
universities and laboratories, or disciplines, such as sociology or chemistry. The
most useful OA archives comply with the metadata harvesting protocol of the
Open Archives Initiative, in which they are interoperable and users can find
their contents without knowing which archives exist, where they are located, or
what they contain (Suber, 2004).
OA journals are the second
type of vehicle for distributing OA research. OA journals perform peer review
and then make the approved contents freely available. This means that they have
costs related to peer review, manuscript preparation, and server space. Production
costs are generally paid upfront so that access can be made free charge for
users with the right equipment. As in other open source movements, there are
several funding models that can be applied to OA journals to help them meet
those costs: institutional subsidies; charging processing fees from authors or
author sponsors (employer, funding agency) on accepted articles; income from
other publications, advertising, priced add-ons, or auxiliary services; annual institutional
memberships; and fee discounts from institutions or consortia (Suber, 2004).
The
There is no question that scholarly
publishing has been leveraged in the last decades by the enormous potential of
internet technology. Since the 1960s, several government agencies in the USA,
the UK, the USSR and Japan have been supporting a significant research effort
aimed at finding solutions to a number of problems within scientific (and
technical) communication in general, and scientific journals in particular
(Correia & Teixeira, 2005). The problems addressed include the information
explosion, increasing publishing costs and prices, delays in publishing and
distribution inefficiencies. The application of Information and Communication
Technology led to the emergence of electronic publishing, digital processing of
information, digital storage, and ultimately the electronic journal (Correia et
al., 2005). The emergence of electronic
journals coupled with the internet has had a significant impact on the decline
of the traditional printed journal as the primary means for scholarly communication. However, despite the fact that many journal
publishers had begun to give access to electronic versions of their existing
printed journals, proponents of electronic communication assumed that this was
just replicating, in the new medium, the status quo of the print version (Correia
et al., 2005).
Thus, owing to several
factors, the established scholarly journal system has been experiencing
significant challenges to its continuing domination. Some of these are outlined
in Correia et al. (2005, p. 352):
The rapid advance in most scholarly fields means that turnaround time of the traditional publishing model creates a barrier to efficient dissemination of research and development results among peers.
The full transfer of intellectual property rights from author to publisher required by the traditional model works against wide dissemination and promotion of results, and thus, peer recognition and visibility among colleagues.
A rigid peer review process which tends to favor papers originating from authors of more prestigious organizations and causes unacceptable delays in publication.
Increases in journal subscription rates, which often exceed rates of inflation and affordable library budgets.
If academic journals have been
leveraged by new technologies, scholarly books have been adversely affected
primarily by market pressures. An American Association of University Presses (AAUP)
statement published in 2007 comes close to denouncing the whole for-profit
model:
For university presses, unlike
commercial and society publishers, open access does not necessarily pose a threat to their operation and their pursuit
of the mission to advance knowledge,
and to diffuse it...far and wide. Presses can exist in a gift economy for at least the most scholarly of their
publishing functions if costs are internally reallocated (from library purchases to faculty grants and
press subsidies). But presses have increasingly been required by their parent
universities to operate in the market economy, and the concern that presses have for the erosion of
copyright protection directly reflects this
pressure (P. 5).
According to the AAUP's own
figures (2007): "On average, AAUP university-based members receive about
10% of their revenue as subsidies from their parent institution, 85% from sales, and 5% from other
sources" (p. 3). These figures run
counter to the mission stated above: advance knowledge and diffuse it, far and
wide, and supports the notion that today's commercially structured system runs
counter to the aims stated by AAUP, restricting access and limiting outlets for
publication
This environment has led to
the emergence of innovative new publishing models using internet technologies
for the dissemination and communication of research materials among scholars
with functionalities that far exceed those existing in the print world. These
new models work to promote rapid access to scholarly documents (free of charge,
in some cases), and are based on author self-archiving in which documents of
author-supplied research are placed on a publicly accessible web site, without
publisher mediation.
For example, in discussing the
sustainability of scholarly presses, Holbo (2006) argues that scholarly publishing should be
divided into small, collective publishing shops run by academics, which would
require them to extend their present duties to reviewing, editing and
formatting, with the benefit of mutual aid and logistical support. This would
free the scholarly presses to do what they do best: telling the difference
between books that will sell 200 and 1000 copies, and only firing up the
machines for the latter. It would also disentangle presses from any obligation
to underwrite the production rituals of the tenure and review process, and allow
for more diverse and experimental data to be published as the risk to presses
would be leveraged by smaller, electronic publishing shops.
Other publishing models based
on self-archiving are outlined in Kling, Spector, & McKim (2002, para. 1):
Electronic journal. An edited package of articles distributed to most of its subscribers in electronic form.
Hybrid-paper electronic (or the p-e ) journal. Usually the electronic version of a paper journal, it is a package of peer-reviewed articles available through electronic channels, but whose primary distribution channels are paper based; or the e-p journals (hybrid e-p) which is primarily distributed electronically and has a limited distribution in paper form.
Author self-posting. Authors posing their articles on their web sites.
Field/subject-wide, e-print repositories.
These new electronic publishing models, based on self-archiving by the author, have the potential to revolutionize scholarly communication, rendering it more efficient and effective (Correia et al., 2005).
Benefits of OA
Although technological innovations and e-publishing have driven OA, OA provides many important benefits to both scholars and the public. These are outlined in the Association of Research Libraries (2002, p. 1):
- Society benefits from the open exchange
of ideas. Access to
information is essential in a democratic society. Public health, the
economy, public policy all depend on access to and use of information,
including copyrighted works.
- Access to copyrighted materials
inspires creativity and facilitates the development of new knowledge.
o Intellectual property is the lifeblood of
progress in the sciences and arts. New knowledge is developed from existing
information.
o Authors build on the intellectual products
of others to create new works.
- Copyright exists for the public
good. Copyright was
intended to serve the public interest by encouraging the advancement of
knowledge while protecting the rights of authors and copyright owners. It
is meant to balance the competing interests of creators, publishers, and
users, not stifle the free flow of information.
- Federal investment in research and
development is leveraged by access to research results. The federal government spent close
to $50 billion on non-defense related research and development in 2002.
The government depends on the dissemination of the results of that
research as a stimulus to further economic, scientific, medical, and environmental
development.
In addition to the benefits outlined above, researchers and academics gain efficient
ways to share results, combat the rise in journals costs fast outpacing libraries
ability to afford them, overcome barriers raised by the full transfer of
intellectual property rights from author to publisher and improve on the slow
turnaround of traditional publishing (Correia et al., 2005). With Open Access, authors still own the
original copyright in their works, and can either transfer to publishers the
right to post the work freely on the Web, or retain the right to post their own
work on institutional or disciplinary servers. Authors, however, retain control
over the integrity of their work and have the right to be properly acknowledged
and cited.
OA also removes obstacles that limit access to information, and enables the research community to maximize its impact by maximizing user access to its research output. Current barriers to access include increasing expenditures for serials by research libraries, diminished competition among publishers due to electronic journal licensing practices, and legal issues that involve copyright and digital technology (notably, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act). When comparing the citation counts of individual OA and non-OA articles appearing in the same (non-OA) journals, Harnad & Brody (2004) noted a discernible difference in terms of the frequency with which the article is cited, concluding that there is a dramatic advantage in favor of the articles that their authors have made OA. Harnad et al. (2004) argues that these results are due to primarily to the fact that OA dramatically increases the number of potential users of any given article by adding those users who would otherwise have been unable to access it because their institution could not afford the access-tolls of the journal in which it appeared.
Obstacles to OA
Even with the significant benefits
offered by OA, there still remain barriers having to do with the slowness of
universities to adapt their policies to support OA and perceptions of economic
sustainability by institutions and funders.
Universities have generally
been behind the curve in adapting to OA. Although Harvard has recently adopted
a mandate for OA, most universities have yet to follow. Maximizing the benefits
of OA for both users and researchers will require leadership from universities to
offer incentives for researchers to publish in OA journals or repositories, and
initiative by researchers to educate themselves on OA publishing options. For
example, most researchers are unaware that many journals allow them to create a
copy of their journal article to self-archive in addition to publishing in established
journals. After concluding that OA increases access to research and therefore
its impact, Harnad et al. (2004) calls on the university to lead the way,
implying that much of the barriers to OA have to do with complacent policies
regarding faculty research and publishing: It is hence clear that the ball is
now in the universities' court: The sooner they extend their existing
publish-or-perish policies to require also providing OA for all those published
articles, the sooner the entire research community will enjoy the benefits of
maximizing its research impact by maximizing user access to its research output
(para. 12).
In addition to the slowness of
universities to provide incentives for OA publishing, concerns remain about the
sustainability of OA particularly with regards publishing. Below are a few of
the standard arguments against OA as outlined by Walt Crawford (2004, p. 7) and
which are frequently cited in other discussions on OA:
1. OA isnt
sustainable without charging thousands of dollars in publishing fees.
2. OA
publishing weakens or undermines peer review.
3. Research
grants dont include publication funding.
4.
OA/article-fee publishing gives well-funded scientists advantages over others.
5.
OA/article-fee publishing will prevent scientists in developing nations from
publishing.
6. OA
publishing undermines professional societies that subsidize their activities.
Many
of these arguments seem to be in response to the National Institute of Health
(NIH) proposal (2008) to mandate OA archiving for all medical literature funded
by NIH grants as well as a suggestion by some policy makers to generalize this
proposal to all academic publications. Under this system, traditional journals
would be allowed a short term monopoly after which the intellectual property
would become public domain. Resistance to these proposals seem to be based on suggestions
that OA amounts to government interference with publishing, and a resulting
fear that quality and innovation will suffer. Publishing industry insiders, as
stated by The Economist (2004), resisted this push, suggesting that, "the
demand for open access to research findings could undermine the sustainability
of the publishing industry" (p. 3). The Economist (2004) went on to
suggest that government regulation could end windfall profits for publishers
and allow for a new hierarchy of prestige in the open access arena. According
to the American Geological Institute Government Affairs Program (2004), Fred
Spilhaus, its then executive director, penned a letter to The Economist in
response:
In many countries, government would become the principal
source of funds for science publication. This sets up a system that can be
politically controlled. Will researchers be allowed to publish politically
incorrect work in subjects ranging from embryos to global change? Will
interference such as forbidding co-authorship with residents of the state's
enemies, as happens in
Walt
Crawford (2004) counters that this argument is odd, especially considering that
most funded research is already funded by governments, and also notes that
upfront funding (i.e., article-fee funding, in which the author pays a fee
for publishing the article) is not the only funding model for OA journals (p.
8).
Many critics are
dubious of OA because they do not believe that the model is economically
sustainable, and that, if relied upon, it could damage the market as publishing
businesses experience difficulties due to reduced revenues (Worlock, 2004).
This is a key concern for publishers. However, many have argued that its the
traditional model that is unsustainable precisely because its customers are no
longer prepared to pay the steep asking prices of research literature which
have increased at a higher rate than inflation since the 1970s. In January of 2004,
the
In the age of the internet, there
is clearly a tension which exists between the ease at which content can be
accessed, and the reality that creating and distributing content can be an expensive
process. Whether open access models will be economically sustainable in the
long term is still being debated, although many OA advocates claim that the question
has been answered. Any emerging models will have to be grounded firmly in
economic reality to have any chance of success (Worlock, 2004). Both OA and the
traditional models will be tested in this environment, and the solution will
likely be a combination of both.
The Role of Libraries in OA
When it comes to open access, libraries and librarians have potentially key roles in providing institutional credibility to self-archiving repositories, partnering with traditional journals to provide free access, and offering a core infrastructure which could be drawn upon for future OA business models. In addition, OA advances the same values that librarians have traditionally advanced: equitable access to all information resources.
When discussing OA and libraries, Crawford (2008) considers the broader role of libraries in society, and defines the real issue as library access to scholarship, open or otherwise (para. 3). Library access to scholarship involves long-term access to the full range of human creativity. In the current subscription model, the skyrocketing price of science and medical journals threatens access to other disciplines such as the humanities and social sciences, where monographs and other books may be the primary means of communicating progress. This, in turn, threatens library access to scholarship.
Library-based digital repositories are likely to go much farther than refereed scholarly articles in supporting other digital materials created within the repositorys scope that do not fit neatly into the refereed-article slot. This reflects the physical library structure where all types of journals, monographs, and other gray material are housed adjacent to one another, offering users access to a much greater range of creativity and knowledge. The arguments for broader inclusion are clear: such inclusion helps justify the costs of the repository, makes it stronger for long-term use, and improves the library and its parent institution by providing access to important scholarly resources (Crawford, 2008).
Although the current subscription-based scholarly publishing model is clearly failing economically and philosophically, it still provides important branding for papers and repositories. When it comes to publishing research, many scholars choose prestige over open access, opting to publish in traditional journals without the knowledge that many also allow self-archiving in addition to the print version. To encourage self-archiving or green OA, libraries offer professional-quality institutional repositories and maintenance by institutional staff. Good institutional repositories are not cheap (although the software itself may be free), but they are sustainable for the long term, unlike server in a closet departmental repositories with no firm base of funding or firm long-term programmatic support (Crawford, 2008).
Lastly, libraries provide an infrastructure for scholarly publishing. Libraries are considered basic educational infrastructure and funded as such. Vershbow (2007) suggests moving beyond trying to reconcile OA with existing architectures of revenue, and begin talking about what it would mean to reconfigure the entire scholarly publishing system away from commerce and back toward infrastructure (para. 6). Collaboration between publishers and libraries could provide an effective publishing model that would counter the adverse effect of market pressures on university presses. As business and distribution models rise and fall, one thing that will not go away is the need for editorial vision and sensitive stewardship of the peer review process in which publishers play a key role (Vershbow, 2007). Joining forces, publishers and librarians could work together to deliver a diverse and sustainable range of publishing options including electronic/input dual editions, multimedia networked formats, pedagogical tools, online forums for transparent peer-to-peer review, and other things not yet conceived. All of it, by definition, open access, and all funded as libraries are funded: as core infrastructure (Vershbow, 2007).
Conclusion
The open access movement is one response to a general failure of the for-profit scholarly publishing system which has been leveraged by internet technology and adversely affected by market pressures. The information explosion of the last several decades has led to rapid advances in most scholarly fields. Coupled with increasing publishing costs and inefficient distribution, traditional scholarly publishing has been stretched to its limits, fueling alternative models. Open access seeks to promote rapid access to scholarly documents (free of charge, in some cases), in which documents of author-supplied research are placed on a publicly accessible web site, without publisher mediation. With the help of institutional backing from libraries and universities, OA will continue to gain legitimacy and acceptance, offering an effective alternative to the traditional scholarly publishing model.
References:
American Geological Institute Government Affairs Program, (2004, November 30). Public access to federally-funded scientific research. Retrieved November 2, 2008, from American Geological Institute Web site: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/legis108/public_access.html.
Association of
Correia, A.M., & Teixeira, J. C. (2005). Reforming scholarly publishing and knowledge communication: From the advent of the scholarly journal to the challenges of open access. Online Information Review, 29(4), 349-364. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from ABI/INFORM Global database. (Document ID: 913587381).
Crawford, W. (2004,
November). Library access to scholarship. Cites & Insights, 4,
Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://citesandinsights.info/civ4i13.pdf.
Crawford, W. (2008).
Thinking about libraries. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from The PALINET Leadership Network Web site:
http://pln.palinet.org/wiki/index.php/Thinking_about_libraries_and_access.
The Economist,
(2004).Access all areas; scientific publishing. The Economist, 372,
73.
Harnad, S., & Brody, T. (2004). Comparing the impact of open access (OA) vs. non-OA articles in the same journals. D-Lib Magazine, Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://www.dlib.org/dlib/june04/harnad/06harnad.html.
Hindawi Publishing Corporation. (2008). Hindawi. [Online]. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from http://www.hindawi.com.
Holbo, J. (2006, March 26). Electra press - will work for whuffie, part II. Retrieved October 12, 2008, from The Valve - A Literary Organ Web site: http://www.thevalve.org/go/valve/article/electra_press.
Kling, R., Spector,
L., & McKim, G. Locally controlled scholarly publishing via the internet: The guild model. The Journal of
Electronic Publishing, 8, Retrieved October 10, 2008, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/textidx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.00 08.101.
Medknow Publications Pvt. Ltd. (2005 2008). Medknow Publications. [Online]. Retrieved October 12, 2008 from http://www.medknow.com.
National
Suber, P.
(2003).Removing the barriers to research: An introduction to open access for
librarians. College & Research
Libraries News, 64, 92-94, 113.
Suber, P. (2004,
December 29). A very brief introduction to open access. Retrieved October 10, 2008, Web site: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm.
Suber, P. (2007,
December). Predictions for 2008. SPARC Open Access Newsletter #116 Retrieved
October 12, 2008, from http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/12-02- 07.htm.
Velterop, J. (2004, January). The myth of unsustainable open access journals. Nature, Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/10.html.
Vershbow, B. (2007,
March 01). AAUP on open access / business as usual? . Retrieved October 10, 2008, from if:book, A Project of The
Institute for the Future of the Book Web site: http://www.futureofthebook.org/blog/archives/2007/03/aaup_on_open_access_business_ a.html.
Warlock, K. (2004). The pros and cons of open access. Nature, Retrieved October 12, 2008, from http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/34.html#b6.