1. 21-10-2002FU/US - Ethical Forum Freely accessible electronic publishing: Achievements, strategy, prospects Raf Dekeyser K.U.Leuven What should be done by us? (us = Universities, Libraries, Researchers,...)

2. Scientific (scholarly) communication Def.: Set of processes through which the outcome of (academic) research is distributed and archived for the benefit of present and future researchers. Essential ingredients and aims: –publication of (new) scientific information –quality control (QC) (e.g.: peer review) If we look for improvements: which parties have an interest in its efficient performance? –the readers (qualified information and easy access) –the authors (distribution and academic recognition) –the institutions (staff evaluation) –the global community and its requirement for more and better scientifically validated information.

3. Problems with the present system Conflicting needs of authors: –academic recognition (→ prestigious journal!) –wide and fast distribution of his writing (→ cheap journal!) Result: separation between dissemination (arXiv) and publication (journal)! Conflicting needs of readers: –qualified information (→ strict peer review) –fast, easy and free access Conflicting needs of publishers (?): –high shareholder return (high prices, low services) –service to academic community (the opposite)

4. The journal crisis SCI brought quality hierarchy of journals, allowing for uncontrolled price increases; mergers and package deals endanger smaller publishers and may distort the ``impact parameter´´ system Academic community realizes that they write and review the articles for free Academic community has good mastering of digital technology, does not need intermediaries BUT: Bringing change is difficult, due to the obsession with ``impact parameters´´

5. Reactions to the problems 1995: ``Subversive proposal´´ by Stevan Harnad. Authors should claim the right to publish their articles on the Internet. Self-archiving is possible now! It frees the scientific publications from the access limitations imposed by the publishers. 1998: ``To publish and perish´´ (ARL & AAU): analysis of journal crisis + recommendations: –Change academic evaluation procedures (too quantitative and dependent on journals!) –Invest in electronic forms of scientific publication (+ role of societies for evaluation?) –Make libraries more price conscious –Try to get a grip on copyright Recent follow-up: same conclusions for the humanities!

6. New Initiatives: Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) (Also: Public Library of Science & Budapest Open Access Initiative) Started by ARL; aim: to make scientific journals affordable for average university library Alternative journals: support for editorial committees that look for more satisfactory solutions –Organic Chemistry Letters (  Tetrahedron Lett.) –Theory and Practice of Logic Programming Programs ``Create Change´´, ``Declaring Independence´´, ``Gaining Independence´´: creation of helpful documents for awareness raising among editors, authors, readers,… Help in setting up SPARC Europe under umbrella of LIBER 2002: Position paper on Institutional Repositories

7. SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION An initiative of the Association of Research Libraries Igniting Change in ScholarlyCommunication http://www.arl.org/sparc/index.html

8. SPARC Action Plan Incubate alternatives Promote & aid scholar-led publishing initiatives Bring new players into system Introduce new economic models Initiate library-faculty partnerships Demonstrate better, more cost-effective scholarly communications systems

9. SPARC Titles Are Less Expensive Established Title Savings Oppty

10. Alternatives Are Taking the Lead 2000 ISI Journal Citation Reports “Organic Chemistry” (journals with 100+ articles) RankJournalImpact 1J. Organic Chemistry (ACS) 2Organic Letters (ACS)3.367 14Tetrahedron Letters2.558

11. Igniting SPARC In Europe: An Initiative to Create Change In Scholarly Communication SPARC: THE SCHOLARLY PUBLISHING & ACADEMIC RESOURCES COALITION

12. SPARC Europe Need: Cost-effective alternatives to today’s system of scholarly publication. Proposal: Organize a European focal point for change and innovation in scholarly communication. Approach: Create a European-guided affiliate of SPARC to undertake an activist agenda. LIBER accepted the role of umbrella organization.

13. Financial Backing These initial 2-year commitments of support are helping make SPARC Europe a reality: CURL JISC UKB/IWI SPARC Membership structure (Proposed by Working Group) Large research libraries/organizations: £1,000/1,600 Euros Smaller, specialist research libraries /organizations : £500/800 Euros National or pan-European organizations: £10,000/16,000 Euros Membership structure (Proposed by Working Group) Large research libraries/organizations: £1,000/1,600 Euros Smaller, specialist research libraries /organizations : £500/800 Euros National or pan-European organizations: £10,000/16,000 Euros http://www.sparceurope.org/

14. Public Library of Science March 2001: Letter in Science Magazine with appeal to all biomedical journals to make content freely available online 6 months after publication. Appeal to researchers to boycott journals that do not comply (with BioMed Central as obvious alternative…). Supported by 30.000 signatories from 170 countries. Public debate on Nature website.

15. The Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) February 2002: appeal from OSI (Soros) to all researchers to sign manifesto & to free their results from profit driven journals (through self-archiving or new journals with open access policy). 3 x 1M$ for initiatives that foster open access solutions. Does not choose specific model, but encourages experiments for peer review & business model. Encourages publishers to co-operate: –Money for authors in developing countries –Solution for poorer society publishers –Increases readership for established journals Encourages search for replacement of present unsustainable model.

16. Towards a new method for scholarly communication Need for a good library-driven alternative, to prevent monopolies and to result in more competitive price setting. Suggested alternative, with 3 essential ingredients (cfr. text by P.Ginsparg, data-information-knowledge layers): 1.network of (institutional or subject-oriented) repositories, e.g. under library control (care for archiving!) 2.access system for metadata (possibility for unique access point with powerful searching and efficient linking) 3.quality control system and other services 2. is available (OAI) 1. is in progress (but we need to work hard on it) (In Belgian universities: initiative for digital theses network is a first step towards a full e-print archive network!) 3. is the hardest part (embryonic)

17. Quality Control Why is it necessary? –It is part of the process through which our global validated knowledge database is constructed –Important for academic recognition of authors, and therefore for success of the communication system. –Guarantee of quality for the reader, who is confused by information overkill. –Evaluation method for academic authorities. –It improves the quality of the publications Peer review organisation is the main cost –Organisation: estimated at € 300-500 per article. –Payment by author (or his institute) most reasonable source of revenue (e.g.: AES, BioMed Central) –Payment by subscription is an acceptable alternative

18. Arguments to charge QC to the author: –it is the author who gets the intellectual reward for the refereed publication –covering the bill should make the author more aware of the publication cost –the dissemination of scholarly work should be considered to be an essential part of the process of publicly funded research –on a global level, free access leads to a much fairer dissemination of scientific knowledge How should it be organised? –Existing editorial boards may take charge –Learned societies (the ‘roots’ of the journals!) could take their responsibility for peer review –Library organizations (LIBER, SPARC) should take actions for increasing awareness and acceptance in academic community –Management tools (software) are becoming available (e.g. through Roquade)

19. New QC possibilities for e-prints E-print before publication: no information delay! (QC can be added in a later stage) Separate organisation for peer review and for distribution: virtual overlay journals on the basis of links to one or more archives. Required: Extension of OAMHP for QC metadata (would be very helpful for overlay journals!). Many web-based improvements of old system. Interactive peer review, e.g.: Journal of Interactive Media in Education (JIME): reviewers are known to author, conversational process, reviews and reader comments linked to final publication… Obtain new (automated) metrics for QC (counting of citations, downloads,…).

20. Questions asked by Forum Organisers (1) Information technology offers enormous possibilities for better and cheaper communication; this does not mean that we should try to kill the publishers: we should pay them for their added value (but not more!) The present access barriers are disastrous for those who cannot pay We should not be afraid of some temporary chaos: it may lead to an improved state (cfr. steel making!) Long term archiving (often seen as a problem) is better guaranteed by the libraries than by the publishers Is it really possible for scientific publishing to do away with the intermediation of large profit-seeking organizations? Are there not some unpleasant, possibly even disastrous side-effects to be expected, which would soon take us back to the status quo or worse? What can be learned from existing experiments? And from an economic analysis of their generalization?

21. Questions asked by Forum Organisers (1) Existing experiments show that alternatives are possible and affordable, that they work and that they are getting increasing worldwide credibility Intermediate experiments should be encouraged as important steps towards a final solution Libraries should take the lead (information responsibility!), but they should involve the whole academic community Future model may be uncertain, but it will be online and with open access Is it really possible for scientific publishing to do away with the intermediation of large profit-seeking organizations? Are there not some unpleasant, possibly even disastrous side-effects to be expected, which would soon take us back to the status quo or worse? What can be learned from existing experiments? And from an economic analysis of their generalization?

22. Questions asked by Forum Organisers (2) Libraries should continue to provide the necessary scientific information to students and researchers, but they should spend their scarce money wisely and critically (e.g., be aware of the dangers of publisher mergers and journal bundling, make cost analysis like € per page or € per accessed paper!) Simultaneously, libraries should encourage OA initiatives or take the lead; they should demonstrate to their constituency and to the authorities the (long-term) advantages of OA Scientists (especially the young ones) should not jeopardize their future; let them publish in good journals, but at the same time post their publications in an Open Access archive (many publishers allow this – avoid the others!) Is it the duty of academic libraries to start boycotting high-price journals? Do scientists have a duty to stop publishing in… conventional journals? Must education and research ministries and other relevant bodies be encouraged to redirect their resources?

23. Questions asked by Forum Organisers (2) Scientists should consider refusing to referee for the journals that are perceived as too expensive; editorial boards should use their influence (or threaten to resign…, cfr. SPARC examples) When more peer-reviewed open access journals become available, top researchers should feel responsible for helping them achieve good impact ratings (through publishing and through editorial tasks) Resources for information provision should be allocated to the libraries, who have the duty to offer an optimal service at a minimal cost Scientific assessment committees and funding agencies should accept these OA publications and encourage new models, out of concern for an optimal spending of the research money (ESF has already taken a supportive attitude!) Is it the duty of academic libraries to start boycotting high-price journals? Do scientists have a duty to stop publishing in… conventional journals? Must education and research ministries and other relevant bodies be encouraged to redirect their resources?

24. Conclusion Modern ICT offers possibilities to solve the journal crisis, but we have to overcome the threshold of inertia We should not be afraid of experimental models: one of them may bring us the solution There is still a long way to go, on two fronts: –the development of a new system, especially for QC –awareness raising in the academic world In the meantime, libraries should continue to give researchers access to the relevant scientific information, but with a critical attitude to what is offered All involved stakeholders (universities, societies and commercial publishers) are invited to join the concerned libraries in their search for a fair-priced system for scientific communication