I really don’t understand how journals and the peer review system could collapse if everybody had access to information. That is really absurd and they should be happy because they would be getting a wider audience and more people would have access to their work. They are in panic because they are losing money and that is all to it.

Trevor McKinley, at 9:30 pm EDT on July 18, 2007

Adler says we’re giving away our research to foreign governments? Well Maybe one of those foreign governments will actually be able to engage in scientific activity, like stem cell work, without religious intervention of the Bushies.

Andrieu, at 5:20 pm EDT on September 6, 2006

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the publishers are now getting at least some of the peer review process for free. Many university and college faculty are peer reviewers who aren’t paid for their services. I was never paid when I was a reviewer, viewing it as a contribution to my profession.

Carol, at 11:05 am EDT on September 7, 2006

The “double-edged sword” of open access

Before too many people join these provosts and presidents in jumping on the bandwagon of “open access,” they should reflect on one simple fact: there are forms of “open access” that are compatible with a market-based economy for scholarly publishing, and there are forms (championed by those who support the Budapest Open Access Initiative, for example) that are not. It is an open question at this point whether the system mandated by the FPRAA is of the former or the latter variety. Evidently, many scholarly societies are worried that it will undermine the market for the journals they publish. People should also be aware that the FPRAA will apply to research in the social sciences funded by the NSF, and if it is an open question whether journals in the sciences can survive an FPRAA regime, it is even more questionable whether journals in the social sciences can—many of these published by university presses, of course, and many included in Project Muse, which itself will ultimately be undermined by a full “open access” model of publishing.

The partial open access in which the ACS is now engaging, and in which presses like Oxford have been experimenting for a couple of years now, is compatible with a market-based model—up to a point. Once most articles for a journal come to be supported by fees and made “open access,” the tipping point will come to make that journal a part of the new “gift economy,” which seems to be where the provosts and presidents are ultimately heading. Then the question will arise: where will all that money in fees come from, which will likely not be much if any cheaper than the monies now paid in subscriptions? This model will have the advantage, surely, of opening the research of U.S. universities to the entire world and thus “democratizing” it—which is indeed a noble goal—but it will result in a dramatic internal shifting of allocated funds, from library budgets to individual faculty subventions. And for the smaller colleges that these presidents represent, it will pose a great challenge because then, in order to allow their faculty to publish freely (as they surely will demand to do in order to satisfy the requirements of tenure and promotion), they will need to provide significant amounts of subsidies, the fair distribution of which will no doubt be the subject of endless debate and internal squabbling. So, in exchange for allowing end users a “free ride,” administrators will be required to devise an equitable and well-funded scheme of subsidization—or else their faculty will be shut out of publishing their articles.

If the “open access” movement succeeds further in making inroads into the realm of monograph publishing, that challenge will increase manyfold, as the amoiunts of subsidy reequired to fully fund book publication will be on the order (for an average 250-page monograph with no illustrations) of $25,000 to $30,000—a lot heftier price tag than, say, $1,000 or $3,000 per journal article.

Have the proponents of “open access” really thought through all the consequences of their proposal, including what universities will do if commercial and society publishers decide to abandon the business of journal publishing altogether? That could be a nightmarish scenario indeed, as commercial publishers have no reason to be in the business other than to make a profit and society publishers can only justify it if they can find another way to fund their other activitiesm, such as massivly hiking membership fees.

Like many who advocate “open access,” the CIC’s Barbara Allen refers vaguely to “all kinds of models” that could support peer review and “open access” publishing. What is lacking in the discussion so far is any real effort to map out in detail just what these models are, and what the likelihood of their succeeding is, especially if the market-based type of “open access” does not satisfy these proponents and they continue to push for the full-blown variety. My guess is that any such effort would reveal that a really drastic change in the economy of scholarly communication would be required, on a scale that would be a major challenge for universities to implement. One thing is certain: no university can do this unilaterally. And universities do not have a good record for changing systems in a very broad-scale cooperative way (witness the continuing challenges with Division 1 sports!) in a short period of time, which might be necessary if the major players that make the system function today were to disappear suddenly from the scene. I think it is incumbent on administrators, at the very least, to have some contingency plans in place to deal with such an eventuality, so that the whole systerm doesn’t collapse utterly with ensuing chaos, including the demise of university presses as we now know (and I hope) love them.

All I’m requesting, in short, is that “open access” advocates don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater in their zeal to usher in their brave new world of democratized knowledge. I share their ideals, but question their methods.

Sanford G. Thatcher, Director at Penn State University Press, at 3:25 pm EDT on September 7, 2006

It would help me a great deal to know more concretely how the money brought in by journal subscriptions is spent: how much goes to peer reviewers, how much goes to society activities, how much to actual publication costs (either printing/binding or electronic management), and how much to administration or other areas I’m not even aware of. I expect the breakdown could vary considerably among publishers, but even a rough idea would help.

Alice Carli, at 10:05 am EDT on September 8, 2006

Replies to comments

“Don” needs to keep in mind that there are many different kinds of “scholarly publishers.” Almost all members of the Association of American University Presses are scholarly publishing houses owned and operated by the universities whose names they bear. One wonders how “Don” sees these presses engaging in a “business scam” since any losses or surpluses accrue to the universities themselves, not to external entities. And most of these presses are valued enough by their universities to be subsidized. Those that publish journals, by the way, do not increase prices annually by 7-12%. Our press’s increase for the eleven journals we publish has not been greater than the general rate of inflation, and sometimes has been less. What is important to remember, though, is that these eighty or so presses provide a service from which all universities and their faculty benefit, as “free riders” on the system, since most do not pay to support it beyond the purchases of books and journals they make. The problem with moving to full “open access” is that even this investment in the system through the market falls away and the burden on the universities with presses becomes even greater, unless other universities subsidize their faculty to publish through these presses.

Alice Carli asks some good questions that I am not in a position to answer since they are directed at society publishers, not university presses. I can say that, for journal publishers generally, peer review is not a compensated activity, so “Don” is correct about that. We do pay fees to faculty for evaluating monographs, though they are quite modest in relation to the effort expended. And for our press at least, any “profits” we make from journal publishing go to support our publication of monographs, relatively few of which ever break even.

“Savitri” brings to the fore a whole different range of issues associated with patents and the rules restricting publication before they are secured. Universities indeed have countervailing interests here that militate against “open access,” and we may thank “Savitri” for reminding of this additional complexity as it affects particularly publication in the sciences. There has long been a tension within university IP policies, which place great weight on generating and protecting patents as a significant asource of income, on the one hand, while advocating very generous exemptions to copyright law for educational use, on the other hand. This shows up most starkly when state universities have occasion to claim “sovereign immunity” as state agencies under the Eleventh Amendment when they are sued for copyright infringement, while they are eager to protect their intellectual property where patents are concerned. It’s a perfect case of eating your cake and having it, too! One would hope that Congress and the courts will eventually find a way to rectify this basic inequity at the heart of the current copyright regime.

Sanford G. Thatcher, Director at Penn State University Press, at 2:35 pm EDT on September 13, 2006

seeking for sponsorship

I am a male of 22 years of age in makerere university in East Africa ,seeking for sponsorship in my education.I am in hard time,anyone wishing to help me contact me via eddiendege@hotmail.com

EDWIN SIMON NDEGE, student at university, at 11:05 am EDT on October 15, 2006

My opinion is that probably most of the people are not against (i want say they’re pro) Open Access. But free information is something that can’t be achived in one month or a year. It’s an everlasting process. Also to Ted I disagree that it all comes to money I want elaboreate my statement I’lljust say it again It’s not always just money

Erick, at 3:00 pm EDT on June 14, 2007