1. The Open Access Movement as Five-Act Play
Richard Poynder

2. History: An Imprecise Science
History is in the eye of the beholder
Events are always over-determined
For me a helpful analogy is a five-act play

3. DRAMATIS PERSONAE Librarians Researchers
Publishers and learned Societies
Research funders/ governments
The public?
As with any good drama the different actors all have their own – often conflicting – interests

4. Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida Act I, scene III
What Discord Follows!
A dramatic plot requires a disturbance of the established order, followed by some sort of resolution and a return to order:
O, when degree is shaked,
Which is the ladder to all high designs,
Then enterprise is sick!
Take but degree away, untune that string,
And, hark, what discord follows!
Ulysses in Troilus and Cressida Act I, scene III
Divert and crack, rend and deracinate The unity and married calm of states Quite from their fixure! O, when degree is shaked, Which is the ladder to all high designs, Then enterprise is sick! How could communities, Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities, Peaceful commerce from dividable shores, The primogenitive and due of birth, Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels, But by degree, stand in authentic place? Take but degree away, untune that string, And, hark, what discord follows! Troilus and Cressida > Act I, scene III

5. Our Plot
The story starts in 1665, when Henry Oldenburg created the first peer-review journal for the Royal Society of London: Philosophical Transactions
For over 300 years surprisingly little changed
Then into this settled world erupted three disruptive forces:
The “serials crisis”
New digital technologies Technology
The Web Technology
These have thrown the scholarly communication process into turmoil, disrupting the Shakespearean order
Elsevier has been dated back to the late 1800s: Elsevier Scientific Publishing was publishing engineering journals as far back as 1884.
But it was perhaps Robert Maxwell who sparked the commercial revolution. Until he spotted the potential, and apart from Elsevier which was a very small operation at the time, it was mainly learned societies that were in the game (see Maxwell formed Pergamon Press in 1948.

6. Two Problems There are essentially two problems:
The affordability problem: the librarian’s problem
The access problem: the researcher’s problem
In the print world these two things were shackled together: in an electronic environment they no longer necessarily are
They are also often conflated, causing considerable confusion — both about the issues themselves and appropriate solutions

7. Act I The Serials Crisis

8. The Serials Crisis (The Main Plot)
The serials crisis stems from three incompatible trends:
Constant growth in research output
Continuous journal price increases
Static or falling library budgets
Essentially this is an affordability problem

9. Trend A: Growth In Research
Many blame the serials crisis on a post-war research explosion, BUT
In 1956 D. J. Price estimated that the number of scientific papers published annually had been doubling every years for the last two centuries (‘The Exponential Curve of Science’)
Not so much a recent trend as a Moore’s Law of scholarly communication inherent in the system?
A trend that has reached a crisis point in the last twenty years
The traditional scholarly communication model is perhaps not infinitely scaleable?
[‘The Exponential curve of science’, Discovery 17 (1956), ].

10. Trend A: Growth In Research
Also changing geographically
In S&E research output (as measured by publication in the world's key journals), the number of U.S. articles stopped increasing after the early 1990s. The U.S. share of world output has declined. (Science & Engineering Indicators 2004, National Science Board)
1988 the US share was 38.1%; In 2000 this had declined to 30.9% (Science & Engineering Indicators 2004)
But still growing, so it is a relative decline
The National Science Board is an independent policy body established by Congress in 1950 with dual responsibilities to:
Oversee and guide the activities of, and establish policies for, the National Science Foundation; and
Serve as an independent national science policy body that provides advice to the President and the Congress on policy issues related to science and engineering that have been identified by the President, Congress or the Board itself.

11. Trend B: Journal Price Inflation
Average serial subscription in 1986 = $89.77
By 2003 = $283 (Cumulative increase = 260%)
CPI increased 68%

12. Trend C: Library Budgets Squeezed
Between 1986 and 2003 total expenditure at libraries of the Association of Research Libraries (ARL) increased 128%
1986 total library budget: $8,361,092, of which serials accounted for $1,496,775 (17.9%)
2003 = $19,030,188, of which serials accounted for $5,392,007 (28.3%)
Average annual change for serials = 7.8%
Average annual change for monographs = 3.6%
ARL libraries are a relatively small subset of libraries in North America, but they do account for a large portion of academic library resources in terms of assets, budgets, and the number of users they serve. The total library expenditures of all 123 member libraries in was more than $3.2 billion; from that, about $2.5 billion was spent by the 113 university libraries and almost $826 million by the nonuniversity libraries.

13. Trend C: Library Budgets Squeezed
Other items have therefore suffered
In 2003, ARL libraries acquired 32% fewer monographs but just 1% fewer serials per student than they did in 1986
Robbing Peter to pay Paul

14. Librarians Rebel In response librarians have increasingly rebelled:
1997 the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) launched. An initiative of ARL to create “…an alliance of universities, research libraries, and organizations.... [to] … be a constructive response to market dysfunctions in the scholarly communication system.”
New, lower-cost traditional journals launched: Organic Chemistry Letters (Tetrahedron Letters.)
More recently libraries have begun to engage in significant, and public, journal cancellations
2001 SPARC Europe launched: this is an international problem
Also: Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, PhysChemComm etc.

15. Act II The Technology Challenge

16. The Technology Challenge
Using our theatrical metaphor there are two sub-plots:
New Digital Technologies
The Web
Why is the Web distinct from technology?
Because the Web is more than the sum of its technology parts (technology + network)
Why is the serials crisis the main plot?
The affordability issue represents a serious problem for both publishers and librarians; no immediate solution is apparent
For researchers the only issue is access, and they can probably resolve the matter for themselves

17. Publishers Respond To New Digital Technologies (Sub-Plot 1)
New proprietary online services:
1970 Mead Data Central (LexisNexis) launched: first professional online service (around 300 years after Oldenburg)
1972 Dialog launched by Lockheed Corporation
Publishers distribute journals via online services and develop their own electronic products:
1983 The American Chemical Society offered full-text versions of eighteen primary journals through the BRS online system
1991 ADONIS service launched (400 journals on CD-ROM: Blackwell, Elsevier, Pergamon and Springer-Verlag)

18. Publishers Respond To The Web (Sub-Plot 2)
1991 a more potent force is unleashed: the Web
1993 Elsevier launches TULIP (The University Licensing Program) = networked access to 45 journals)
1997 ScienceDirect launches (1,200 journals)
Other publishers: Academic Press’ IDEAL in 1996, Wiley’s InterScience in 1997, Blackwell’s Synergy in 1999
TULIP is a cooperative research project testing system for networked delivery and use of journals, performed by Elsevier and nine Universities in the USA. The participants set three objectives at the outset:
Technical
To determine the technical feasibility of networked distribution to and across institutions with varying levels of sophistication in their technical infrastructure. "Networked distribution" means sending the information both across the national Internet and over campus networks to the desktops of students and faculty. Elsevier will deliver the journal information to participating universities in standard formats. The universities will incorporate the information in local prototype or operational systems. A wide variety of delivery alternatives, search and retrieval systems and print-on-demand options will be compared.
Organizational and economic
To understand, through the implementation of prototypes, alternative costing, pricing, subscription and market models that may be "viable" in electronic distribution scenarios; comparing such models with existing print-then- distribute models; and understanding the role of campus organizational units under such scenarios. The overall goal is to reduce the unit cost of information delivery and retrieval. "Viable" means economically and functionally acceptable to all parties.
User behaviour
To study reader usage patterns under different distribution (technical, organizational and economic) situations. Improvement in the functionality of the information, whether as to article structure or retrieval tools, will also be considered. Certain data will be collected uniformly at all sites for analysis in the aggregate and for comparison among different systems.

19. The Big Deal 1996 publishers develop the Big Deal (Academic Press?)
An “all you can eat” model that treated the Web as little more than another distribution channel
It did not address the challenge posed by the Web; nor its huge potential
Unresolved tension: Open Web v Walled Garden
Not so much “network effect” as “link effect” (Where linking implies seamless — free?— access)
Question: was the Big Deal intended to address the affordability problem or the access problem?
Simply put, the Big Deal is an online aggregation of journals that publishers offer as a one-price, one size fits all package. In the Big Deal, libraries agree to buy electronic access to all of a commercial publisher's journals for a price based on current payments to that publisher, plus some increment. Under the terms of the contract, annual price increases are capped for a number of years. Ken Frazier, The Librarians’ Dilemma, D-Lib, March 2001

20. The Affordability Problem
The logic of the Big Deal was to create ever larger portfolios of journals
Since it adopted the walled garden approach the Big Deal begged the question: can one vendor provide everything researchers need/want?
Its logic inevitably sparked rapid and extensive industry consolidation
Today Reed Elsevier and Springer between them control around 40% of the STM journal market
How well has the Big Deal addressed the serials crisis (the affordability problem)?

21. Pre Big Deal

22. Post Big Deal Serial unit costs have fallen (from 226% to = 215%)
But total serial expenditures have continued to rise (from 192% to 260%
So the Big Deal has failed to resolve the affordability problem posed by the serials crisis (Main Plot)
Moreover, its adoption comes at the expense of smaller publishers – due to the “portfolio effect”

23. The Portfolio Effect
“[Where] the purchaser of an automobile [generally] wants just one item, users of scholarly journals want access to everything.” (Mark McCabe Interview, 2002)
“Unlike the conventional approach to [assessing mergers] — which assumes that an individual user's preferences for journal content define the market and thus limit its scope to a handful of titles—the portfolio model is based on library behaviour and permits a broader [market] definition. Once this step is taken, the basis for the anticompetitive effects is familiar to any economics undergraduate: When the price of one journal increases, owners of other titles have an incentive to increase their prices too. Moreover, since larger portfolio firms can better internalize these "pricing externalities," they find it profitable to set their prices higher than would be observed in a market populated by smaller firms.” (Mark McCabe Interview, 2002)
It seems the Big Deal has only exacerbated the affordability problem (serials crisis)
It has also reduced choice and threatened small publishers
ARL comments:
In informal conversations held with some ARL libraries, it seems that the inclusion of electronic serials in the counts of serial subscriptions purchased caused a slight increase in purchased serials—often, for a relatively small addition to the base subscription price, some publishers provide access to electronic resources for an additional 10 or 20% surcharge.
So, if you have access to twice as many journals from a major publisher at ‘only’ a 10% surcharge, say, then the average price per title will go down. That is good news, but it raises new concerns. Are these extra titles actually titles that the library wants? There have been complaints of lack of flexibility in the ‘big deals’. Also, where does the money to pay the surcharge come from? With libraries that have flat or only slightly increasing budgets the money might come from further raids on the monograph budget or from cutting titles that are not part of the big deals. So the concern here is that titles from smaller (often society) publishers are at more risk of cancellation.
******
McCabe:
Unlike the purchaser of an automobile, who generally wants just one item, users of scholarly journals want access to everything. So where traditional antitrust analysis would adopt a "content" approach to assessing the likely impact of a proposed merger or acquisition in the scholarly journal market (treating one or perhaps a few similar titles as a single market and assuming that a journal in one field of economics is not a substitute for a journal in another field), I believe it is more appropriate to use a "portfolio" approach-one that takes a much broader view of users' buying decisions.
“One distinctive aspect of this market is that end users do not pay for the material they use since the actual purchases are mediated by the libraries. This means that the principals (the professors, the scientists, the researchers) ask their agent (the library) to buy whatever they need, and the agent has no way of enforcing price discipline on the users. So there is a disconnect.” (Mark McCabe 2002)

24. The Access Problem Has the Big Deal addressed the access problem?
For some researchers it has — up to now
“I do not see that there is any significant problem in S&T publishing at the present time.” Professor David Williams, Liverpool University
But the logic of the walled gardens approach in a “portfolio” market implies just one, increasingly expensive, vendor
CrossRef could perhaps resolve the access problem if there were no accompanying affordability problem
Many libraries are now rejecting the Big Deal (e.g. Cornell and North Carolina State University), and cancelling journals in growing numbers
“The way I see things developing is that more and more of our customers will have access to the whole ScienceDirect database, and they will find it much easier to use ScienceDirect than alternative methods.” (Derk Haank, 2002)

25. Act III Open Access

26. Researchers React To The Web
Some researchers did “get” the Web (Sub-Plot 2)
Their focus has been entirely on solving the access problem
1991 arXiv preprint server launched (same year as the Web)
1994: The “Subversive Proposal” (Stevan Harnad)
The proposal: researchers should self-archive their papers in order to remove access barriers
It assumed that publishers would still do the peer review, but little else
arXiv is a central discipline-based repository of preprints created to allow physicists to share their ideas more quickly than the lengthy process of publication allowed. It had 20,000 users by the time Harnad posted the Subversive Proposal, and was receiving 35,000 hits per day

27. Exploring New Models
The arXiv model was not lost on funders and some publishers:
1999 the then director of the NIH Harold Varmus proposed E-BioMed Central.
E-Biomed was to be “an electronic public library of medicine and other life sciences” consisting of a comprehensive fully searchable free repository of full-text research articles, including both preprint and post-print texts.
When launched in 2000 as PubMed Central (PMC) it had been reduced to voluntary/embargoed access of post prints only
1999 Vitek Tracz created the first OA publisher BioMed Central — which charges authors to publish rather than readers to read, allowing the papers to be made freely available on the web

28. The Open Access Movement
November 2000 Public Library of Science (PLoS) launched and called for free access after a six month embargo. 34,000 signatures collected
February 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI). With $3 million in funding from financier and philanthropist George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI), BOAI was in effect the birth of the Open Access movement
BOAI proposed two solutions/two roads:
The Green Road = BOAI-1
Continue to use existing subscription-based journals, but have researchers make their post prints freely available on the web (The Subversive Proposal)
The Gold Road = BOAI-2
Create new provider-pays OA journals and charge authors/funders to publish (the BMC model)

29. The Open Access Movement
The BOAI aimed to address both the access and affordability problems
While not clearly stated in the BOAI it assumed immediate, not embargoed, access
But E-Biomed/PMC had introduced the concept of embargoed access (replicated in PLoS)
There was also a hidden tension between PMC-style central archiving and distributed self-archiving

30. The Green Road Self-archiving (in distributed archives)
2000 Open Archives Initiative
2000 Eprints software
2002 OAIster (OAI-compliant repository harvester)
And ParaCite, CiteBase, NEC’s CiteSeer …
To address the access problem. But when?
The Open Archives Initiative (OAI) was founded in 2000 to bring the benefits of open archives-compliant software to the research community and launch an international network of institutional repositories.
The Open Archives Initiative develops and promotes interoperability standards that aim to facilitate the efficient dissemination of content. The Open Archives Initiative has its roots in an effort to enhance access to e-print archives as a means of increasing the availability of scholarly communication.

31. The Gold Road OA Publishing BioMed Central (129 OA journals)
In 2001 the Public Library of Science (PLoS) also become an OA publisher (with $9 million grant from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation) Two OA journals; more to come
Other publishers experiment (e.g. the Florida Entomological Society, Entomological Society, OUP’s Nucleic Acids Research)
Intended to address both the access and affordability problems. But can it?

32. OA Publishing Dominates
With funding dollars to burn, OA publishers have dominated discussion of OA
June 2003 Bethesda Declaration
Me-too declarations
October 2003 Berlin Declaration
While “all excellent PR” for OA journal publishing they did little for the self-archiving cause. E.g. there was “no mention or understanding of BOAI-1 in the Berlin Declaration” (Harnad)

33. The Self-Archiving Advantage
Since only 1,000 of the 24,000 scholarly journals are currently OA, OA publishers can today at the most make only 5% of the total refereed research output freely available (Harnad)
If, on the other hand, all researches were to immediately begin self-archiving the papers they publish in traditional journals, the other 95% of the research output could be made OA straight away. “Self-archiving can provide toll-free access to all 2,500,000 annual articles in all 24,000 journals, virtually overnight” (Harnad)
If researchers were mandated to embrace Open Access, 79% say they would self-archive willingly; 17% reluctantly; 4% would not comply
Calls for mandatory OA to compel researchers to archive

34. Act IV Enter The Funders

35. Funders Respond Research funders have the power to enforce OA
December 2002 Howard Hughes Medical Institute makes commitment to cover open-access publication fees for its own researchers
NIH, NSF, Max Planck, CNRS, INSERM, Rockefeller Foundation — all now cover costs of publishing in OA journals
Wellcome Trust (largest private funder of medical researcher)
2003 Report = “OA could wipe as much as 30% off publishing costs”
2003 Public commitment to OA
2004 Announces plans for a European PubMed Central and intention to require archiving of funded research
Continuing stress on OA publishing by funders
However the largest funders are governments

36. The NIH Proposal
On July 14, 2004, the U.S. House Appropriates Committee adopted a set of recommendations for the 2005 federal budget. One key recommendation would have the effect of requiring Open Access to articles based on research grants from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) within six months of publication.
On November 20, 2004, the House-Senate conference committee reaffirmed a version of the House recommendation, and the resulting Appropriations bill was approved by both houses of Congress. President Bush signed it on December 8.
3rd February 2005 NIH published its final draft. The initial mandate proposal had become a request and the six month embargo extended to a 12 month embargo
In retrospect some see the NIH plan as little more than a re-run of E-biomed

37. Meanwhile, In The UK
July 2004 UK Science & Technology Select Committee report:
Called for a network of institutional repositories to be created and all publicly-funded researchers to be mandated to self-archive their articles
Called for the UK Government to fund research into OA publishing
November 2004 UK Government rejects Select Committee report
However, although declining to intervene, the UK Government said it “recognises the potential benefits of Institutional Repositories” and deems them “worthy of encouragement”
Between them the Select Committee and the NIH proposal have shifted the emphasis from OA publishing to self-archiving

38. Publishers Make Concessions
92% of journals have gone green
June 2004 “[T]he timing of [Reed Elsevier’s] announcement, approximately one month before the publication of this report, was unlikely to be coincidental.” UK Select Committee report (“cynical piece of public relations”)
June 2004 Springer launches Open Choice ($3,000 per article)
October 2004 patientINFORM launched (free service for public)
2002 Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) launched. To provide free or low cost access to research for developing countries
2003 Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) launched
The Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) provides free or very low cost online access to the major journals in biomedical and related social sciences to local, non-profit institutions in developing countries. HINARI was launched in January 2002, with some 1500 journals from 6 major publishers: Blackwell, Elsevier Science, the Harcourt Worldwide STM Group, Wolters Kluwer International Health & Science, Springer Verlag and John Wiley, following the principles in Statement of Intent signed in July Twenty-two additional publishers joined in May 2002, bringing the total number of journals to over Since that time, the numbers of participating publishers and of journals and other full-text resources has grown continuously. The HINARI offer is currently guaranteed through 2006.
Xxxxxx
 Access to Global Online Research in Agriculture (AGORA) is an initiative to provide free or low-cost access to major scientific journals in agriculture and related biological, environmental and social sciences to public institutions in developing countries. Launched in October 2003, AGORA will provide access to 708 journals from the world's leading academic publishers. Led by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, the goal of AGORA is to increase the quality and effectiveness of agricultural research, education and training in low-income countries, and in turn, to improve food security. Researchers, policy-makers, educators, students, technical workers and extension specialists will have access to high-quality, relevant and timely agricultural information via the Internet.

39. Learned Societies Get Angry
March 2003 Washington DC Principles designed to provide "needed ‘middle ground’”
Free online provision “to everyone worldwide either immediately or within months of publication” But what does this mean in practice?
A year later the middle ground has become the high ground
“The unspoken crusade [of open-access advocates] is to socialize all aspects of science, putting the federal government in charge of funding science, communicating science, and maintaining the archive of scientific knowledge.” Rudy M. Baum, Editor in Chief, Chemical &Engineering News, September 20,  2004
DC Principles:
Selected important articles of interest are free online from the time of publication;
The full text of our journals is freely available to everyone worldwide either immediately or within months of publication, depending on each publisher’s business and publishing requirements;
The content of our journals is available free to scientists working in many low-income nations;
Articles are made available free online through reference linking between these journals;
Our content is available for indexing by major search engines so that readers worldwide can easily locate information.

40. INTERMISSION

41. The Gold Reality
Today just 5% of articles are published in OA journals
Just 179 journals are archived with PubMed Central, most of which are freely available elsewhere on the Web (e.g. 129 are BMC journals)
How much should an article cost? $525, $1,500, $3,000: We don’t know
How much are authors/funders prepared to pay to publish? We don’t know!
Above all: OA publishing remains an unproven business model
As such, it may solve neither the affordability nor the access problem
What are the “true costs of the essentials?” We don’t know (25%, 75%, 90%?)

42. The Green Reality 92% of journals have gone green
Yet just 15% of the 2.5 million articles published annually are self-archived
Governments have stepped back from the plate — for now
Most authors are ignorant and/or uninterested in OA
It is inherently unstable since it is parasitical on traditional journals
Publishers are beginning to claw back benefits by imposing embargoes
Access problem remains

43. The Researcher’s Dilemma *
How better increase impact and enhance career?
Publish in traditional subscription journals or in Gold OA journals?
Self-archive? When and how? (In some fields citation counts are doubled as a result)
Archive in centralised subject-based repository (e.g. PubMed Central) or in a cross-disciplinary institutional repositories?
NIH proposal has put research in conflict with funder and publisher
So life has just got more difficult

44. The Librarian’s Dilemma *
OA publishing will not solve the affordability problem
“[W]e can reduce the BMC model to a commercial subscription model where the institution pays all costs and the PLoS model as a kind of society-publishing model where there is a mix of subscriptions and author page charges. Reduced to these terms, we appear to be back were we started with traditional publishing.” (Phil Davis, Cornell University librarian)
105 of the 113 ARL institutions would find a producer-pays model more expensive; 7 would find it about the same; 1 would find it less expensive
PLUS libraries still need to pay subscriptions; PLUS they are being asked to help fund institutional repositories ($7,000 to $2.5 million in set-up fees, and at least $40,000 a year in running costs)
So life has just become more difficult
Suber (23/01/05)
There are other considerations missing from this kind of calculation as well. (Cornell's isn't the only one; there was another at Yale last year.) One of the main considerations is that universities will not be the only institutions to pay OA journal processing fees. Funding agencies will pay many of them, especially in biomedicine. Another is that many OA journals --most of the journals listed in the DOAJ-- do not charge any processing fees at all. Another is that universities can provide OA, through institutional repositories and policies encouraging their use, without having to fund OA journals. There are also many miscellaneous considerations that are difficult to take into account. For example: processing fees are highly variable; universities already pay an array of page charges and other fees that would disappear under OA; universities can reduce some of the processing fees for their faculty with institutional memberships at BMC and PLoS; OA will reduce many library expenses beyond subscriptions, such as ILL, licensing, and user authentication; and finally, high-output universities tend to subscribe to more journals than low-output universities, and therefore as OA journals spread, high-output universities will save more than other universities through the conversion, cancellation, or demise of subscription-based journals.)
Margaret Landesman (AmSci 11 Jul 2004) “The faculty say that 95% of the time they don't need the journals - the pre-print server works better. But the more punctilious among them feel they ought to verify citations and check for changes in the actual journal before submitting grant applications or citing other's articles. We seem to be operating a $400,000+ a year citation-verification service for physics. How will this sort of "green" archiving change that?”

45. The Publisher’s Dilemma *
Q: What are the implications of OA publishing for societies and publishers?
A: We don’t know: OA Publishing remains an uncertain solution
Q: What are the implications of self-archiving on publishers?
A: We don’t know: Self-archiving could “jeopardise the stable, scaleable and affordable system of publishing that currently exists.” Crispin Davis, CEO Reed Elsevier
“What would concern us is if there were any dramatic and sudden changes causing a disruption to the scientific record. If, for instance, commercial publishers decided overnight that they were going to withdraw because it no longer seemed commercially viable and there were no alternatives in place.” (Robert Terry, Senior Policy Advisor, Wellcome Trust, 2004)
So life just got more difficult

46. Threat, What Threat? *
But: both the American Physical Society and the Institute of Physics Publishing have not suffered as a result of arXiv
“We don't consider it a threat. We expect to continue to have a symbiotic relationship with arXiv. As long as peer review is valued by the community (and it seems to be), we will be doing peer review. While the APS aspires to open access and is not threatened by arXiv.org, we do have strong reservations about government requirements for Open Access.” APS spokesperson to Alma Swan
The issue may be: distributed versus central archiving
The concern is that PubMed Central for publishers “is a little bit too useful” PLoS’ Helen Doyle and Andy Gass, GPGnet mailing list, October 2004
Meanwhile new actors like Google, Yahoo are entering the market

47. Growing Consensus?
OA publishing has yet to prove itself viable, and may never
Self-archiving might be acceptable, if access is embargoed
The NIH proposal assumes a 12 embargo
Wellcome Trust assumes a 6 month embargo
Nature has introduced a 6 month embargo
DC Principles? (Unclear but embargo seems inevitable)
But central archives like PubMed Central rejected by publishers

48. Is It Enough?
Embargoed OA does not adequately address the scholarly communication problem, so the controversy will not go away
OA appears not to take the costs out of the system so the affordability problem remains
Little is yet OA, so the access problem also remains
But researchers can solve the access problem for themselves.
As library cancellations bite the likelihood is that they will do
The Berlin Declaration is now viewed as the best vehicle for promoting that

49. The Berlin Declaration
52 signatories
In order to implement the Berlin Declaration institutions should:
Implement a policy to require their researchers to deposit a copy of all their published articles in an open access repository, and
Encourage their researchers to publish their research articles in open access journals where a suitable journal exists and provide the support to enable that to happen (1st March 2005)
Back Access 12 months late is too little, too late to benefit research access, usage or progress. This is just another untoward side-effect of the flawed NIH Public Access Policy. NIH has now given ACS a pretext for feeling civic-minded in not giving its green light to immediate self-archiving!
The cure for all this dithering will be institutional self-archiving policies. It doesn't depend on publishers; it never did. It depends entirely upon researchers, their institutions and their research funders.
(Harnad, 08/03/05)

50. Back To Basics *
Why Open Access?
It can improve research impact and allow for faster, more effective research (“Standing on Giants”)
The public purse is effectively paying three times: 1) to fund the research, 2) to pay the salaries of the scientists engaged in peer review 3) to buy the research back from publishing companies
Public’s right to access (e.g. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access)
Researchers in many developing countries are disenfranchised
Optimal and inevitable?

51. Back To Basics *
What is OA?
Sally Morris: “free, unrestricted access (to primary research articles) for everyone.”
Immediate, permanent, online access to the full-texts of peer-reviewed research journal articles, free for all users, webwide (Harnad)

52. Act V The Dénouement

53. What Next?
Research growth set to continue (e.g. the EU “Lisbon target” is to increase research expenditure to 3% of GDP by 2010: currently 1.9%)
The overall expectation is that the number of research papers published will double in coming years (2.5 million => 5 million)
Meanwhile political pressure is not going to go away (e.g. EU report expected Summer 2005)
Developing countries may simply by-pass the peer review process

54. The Answer is Simple Isn’t It?
Governments need to increase library budgets right?
This is unlikely because:
It is widely believed that publishers have been making unacceptable profits (34%) by selling publicly-funded research back to the very people who have (freely) provided it in the first place
It is more likely that additional funds will be found for OA publishing
The Web has changed everything: the access problem can be resolved independently of the affordability problem

55. Questions, Questions, Questions
How do you optimise scholarly communication in a digital, networked world with research output set to double again in the next 10 years?
How do you fund the process? Who pays, for what?
Who has access, and at what cost?
Who controls the process of scholarly communication?
How can scholarly publishing withstand the open logic of the Web?
How do we solve the affordability problem (serials crisis)
How do we solve the access problem? (to stand on giants)
Copyright starts in the hands of the author. As part of an NIH grant agreement, the author grants to NIH a non-exclusive license to publish, reproduce or otherwise use any copyrighted works, including research articles, that are produced with the funding. When an author signs a copyright transfer agreement with the publisher, the publisher takes the copyright subject to NIH's license. The NIH policy debate is over how NIH should use *its* license to publish, reproduce or otherwise use the articles produced with its funding.
Michael W. Carroll
Associate Professor of Law
Villanova University School of Law

56. O, when degree is shaked Can Shakespearean order be restored?
How could communities,
Degrees in schools and brotherhoods in cities,
Peaceful commerce from dividable shores,
The primogenitive and due of birth,
Prerogative of age, crowns, sceptres, laurels,
But by degree, stand in authentic place?
Shakespeare is often accused of being a “political propagandist for the Tudor monarchy” Today degree and primogeniture no longer appropriate!
Perhaps there is no way back?
Today we don’t know if this is a tragedy, a comedy or a history play