1. OPEN ACCESS: a progress report Hot Topic CAUL Hobart

2. Definition Availability of information on the public internet without any price barriers to access Compatible with copyright, peer review, profit See BOAI for fuller definition http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

3. 2004 Developments OECD Declaration (Jan) IFLA Statement (Feb) Washington D.C. Principles (Mar)* ALPSP Principles (Mar)* Go8 Statement (May) Elsevier policy change (June)* DOAJ article level searching (June)

4. Recent Developments 2 EU Enquiry launched (June) U.S. Congress C’tee proposal re NIH-funded research (July) U.K. Commons Enquiry Report (July) OUP announces OA for Nucleic Acids Research (July) Springer announces Open Choice (July)* Alliance for Taxpayer Access (U.S.) (Aug) http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm

5. Business models: ‘author pays’ Costs met by charging for publication of accepted articles Charge may be paid by author/s or by funding body Non-article content may require sub Commercial and non-commercial examples – PLoS, BMC, OUP

6. ‘Author pays’: PLoS Non-profit cooperative organisation Set-up grant of US$9m from Moore Found Income from sponsorships, memberships New, high-profile titles the aim: PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine Authors charged US$1500 Archiving allowed – incl in PubMed Central

7. ‘Author pays’: BioMed Central Commercial company yet to make profit 131 OA journals – 5 require sub for non-article content 29 subscription journals (Reviews of..) Author charges vary – US$525 to US$1500 Institutional memberships waive fees

8. Business models: Prosser model Authors have option to choose OA and pay for it. Subscription levels take account of uptake of OA (?). Advantages: minimises publisher risk, rewards OA-aware authors, meets possible funding requirements. Disadvantages: Subs still necessary, relies on author appreciation of OA

9. Prosser examples Proceedings of the National Academy of Science – author charged US$1000, can archive Springer journals – author charged US$3000 – must transfer copyright, limited archiving Company of Biologists – author charged US$2160 – can archive on personal website

10. Business models: fully subsidised Usually published by a society, organisation or university May have subscription model for print version Good track record eg New Horizons in Adult Education 1987-, Psycholoquy 1990- Bryn Marr Classical Review 1990-, Postmodern Culture 1990-, First Monday 1996- and many more But not high profile, on the whole

11. Contending influences Desire/need for visibility – serves authors, readers – met through OA Need for prestige – met through established journals – serves publishers Viability of OA business models – innovative publishers may be rewarded New clarity of intent of funding bodies

12. Repositories: institutional or disciplinary (central)? A spurious, unnecessary and divisive debate

13. Conclusion 1 OA publishing has had little effect on journal pricing so far, and is unlikely to do so for some time Traditional pattern of journal publishing will persist, perhaps for decades. It will be assisted by the success of OA journals If OA journals fail, less structured models based on repositories will be encouraged

14. Conclusion 2 Success for OA won’t eliminate all our costs (and it’s a long way off) Repositories cost Added value/secondary services will cost (commercial, learned societies) But things are looking up!