Denise Troll Covey Principal Librarian for Special Projects, Carnegie Mellon Open Access Week – October 19, 2010 PUBLISHER on F EDERAL O PEN A CCESS M ANDATES

“There is no crisis in the world of scholarly publishing or in the dissemination of scientific materials.” Allan R. Adler Association of American Publishers July 29, 2010

Escalating journal prices force cancellations, rob book budgets, and reduce access –From , prices up 374% (CPI up 78%) –Forced to buy bundles with journals we don’t need and databases with redundant coverage Nature Publishing Group threatened to raise prices 300% for the University of California University of Chicago Press raised prices < 100% for Carnegie Mellon Says who?

The Scientist, September 28, 2010 “Library cuts threaten research” University of California San Francisco cancelled 233 journals and several databases University of Washington cancelled 1,600 journals, databases, and microforms University of Virginia cancelled 1,169 journals University of Arizona cancelled 650 journals Georgia State University cancelled 441 journal and is considering cancelling 1,092 more New Mexico State University cancelled over 700

Taxpayers are entitled to the research they paid for: data and technical reports. They cannot understand journal articles.

Publishers Provide free summaries to help taxpayers interpret research Sell journal articles to taxpayers for > $30 per article

Taxpayers do not pay for private sector peer reviewed journal articles produced at the publisher’s expense.

Publishers fund coordinating peer review, copyediting, formatting, pagination, etc. Academic institutions fund performing peer review Federal agencies (taxpayers) fund research Final step in research process is peer review and communication of results Say what?

Federal open access mandates diminish copyright protection and expropriate private sector intellectual property.

Bull Authors are the original copyright owners Publishers expropriate author copyrights Federal open access mandates require authors to retain the right to provide open access to their work What is diminished is not copyright protection, but publisher power Is something obstructing your vision?

Publishers ensure that journal content is “accurate, new, and important.” They are the “quality guardians of the scientific record.”

You must be kidding.

Open access means no peer review No, it does not.

Taxpayers do not fund publisher investment in peer review True, but publishers fund coordinating peer review Academic salaries fund performing peer review

Phooey! They do not have the subject expertise! Publishers decide what work to accept or reject based on their own quality standards and expertise

Researchers and funders rely on journal brands to judge a work’s importance and integrity Historically yes, but the practice is under scrutiny New metrics will replace journal impact factors

In 2009 Elsevier was exposed for Publishing what appeared to be a peer-reviewed medical journal, but was really a marketing tool for a pharmaceutical company Offering $25 Amazon gift cards to anyone who would write a review of a new textbook

Federal open access mandates threaten U.S. scientific leadership, competitiveness, and national security.

Can you look me in the eye when you say that?

1.3 billion Chinese have free access to NIH articles: “extremely worrisome implications for U.S. scientific leadership and national security” Suggests publishers prefer China not have access

Free access to U.S. research is “diminishing export opportunities in one of the fastest growing markets ” –>50% of publisher $$ is foreign subscriptions –Publishers lose $100 million annually in China The issue is publisher revenue.

Open access mandates waste tax dollars duplicating work publishers have already done What duplication? Publishers haven’t provided taxpayers with affordable access

Difference, ambivalence or hypocrisy? Many publishers resist open access mandates For a fee, many publishers –Deposit published PDF in NIH’s PubMed Central –Offer open access to published PDF in the journal 63% of 700 publishers in Sherpa RoMEO database allow some form of self-archiving –Of this 63%, almost half (45%) allow deposit of the published PDF in an open access repository

Problem is the business model 90% of publisher revenue is from subscriptions Open access is threatening the status quo, but so is exorbitant journal pricing Need new business model to fund open access to scholarly publications –Funding agency pays –Author / institution pays library pays ^

Federal open access policies should be based on needs assessment of all stakeholders Open access advocates try to balance –Publisher needs –Embargoes to recoup investment –New business models to support open access (e.g., Compact for Open Access Publishing Equity) –User needs and taxpayer rights

Halans rob’s lensonlife Big Gray Mare monkeysnaps JelleS Just a Prairie Boy Shine20 Kat Cole the_moog haleyhughes thegrocer.co.uk NO COPYRIGHT PERMISSION