The UK Government-commissioned Finch Report, which looks at the state of scientific publishing, has called for a shift towards open access publishing which should be underwritten by public money to avoid destroying the well-established and powerful science publishing industry.
The Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings, chaired by Dame Janet Finch, former vice-chancellor of Keele University, was convened last yearby David Willetts, the universities and science minister.
According to Reuters, Finch reports that a more to open access publishing of scientific research is inevitable and should be supported with government funding – but would take some time as the current publishing model was complex and a major industry relied on journal subscriptions.
She said the pace at which the industry shifts depends what happens elsewhere in the world and one of her committee members, Adam Tickell from the University of Birmingham, says similar moves by other key players in the science world could tip the balance in favour of open access.
“If the EU and the United States are as serious about open access as we are, I would expect the rest of the world to follow very quickly,” he said.
Funders of scientific research, the report says, should incorporate the cost of publication into the grants they award, a recommendation that draws support from the Wellcome Trust.
“This will need the support of all of those that fund and support research, who will need to put into place effective and flexible arrangements to meet these costs, which we anticipate being only 1.0-1.5 percent of research costs,” said the trust’s director Sir Mark Walport.
The report predicts that over time the amount UK universities spend on subscriptions – estimated at about 150 million pounds a year – will come down as the money paying for publication in open access journals increases.
But during the transition period, which could last several years, any embargo rules that force scientists who publish in subscription journals to make their research more widely available within, say, six to 12 months of publication, should take into account the damage this could do to those top journals.
The report is quite ambitious in its aspirations for open access publishing and the greater access to scientific research the panel believes this would result in. What are the chances of it becoming a reality? Well, the UK is a major science publishing hub in the world, so if the government funding flows and pilot schemes trialled in the UK are successful, there may be scope to influence the science publishing industry worldwide. But a lot is at stake, not least of which, the fortunes of some of the world’s biggest publishers.
My colleagues at the Science Media Centre in London rounded up reaction from academics and scientific publishers in the UK. Here’s a sample of their responses…
A spokesperson from Elsevier said:
’Elsevier welcomes the Finch report on broadening access to academic research. We are pleased that so many members of the academic community – universities, funders, libraries, scholarly societies, and publishers – have been able to collaborate constructively to find a way forward. The recommendations identify real opportunities, as well as risks, and how they are implemented will be key in ensuring sustainable models for scholarly communications. We look forward to working with other stakeholders to encourage their successful implementation and to enable even wider dissemination of research in the future.’
Dr Mark Downs Chief Executive of the Society of Biology said,
’We welcome the comprehensive and balanced approach taken in the preparation of this report and recognise the need to make as much publicly funded research as possible available to as many people as possible. This can only be achieved with sustainable business and professional support systems in place.
The Society of Biology welcomes the recognition given to the publishing portfolios of the UK’s vibrant community of professional science bodies, who invest heavily in the production of high-quality publications, the support of professional researchers, and the development of information systems to help deliver their wider charitable objectives. These activities are crucial to the continued health of the research environment in the UK and ultimately to the economic and social benefits to be gained from the UK’s investment in science and engineering.’
David Hoole, Marketing Director, Nature Publishing Group, said:
’Nature Publishing Group welcomes the balanced approach of the Finch Working Group report, and its recognition of the need for a mixed economy, of licensing subscription content, self-archiving and open access publication. This is in line with NPG’s own views — as evidenced by our self-archiving policies, licensing terms and increasing offering of open access options and journals. We agree that a transition to open access will take time; will incur extra costs in the interim; and requires close collaboration between government, funders, universities and publishers. We are pleased to see acknowledged the challenges for highly selective journals such as Nature and the Nature research journals, and the key role of journals in the ’complex ecology of research’. The relatively small number of papers published in these highly selective journals will require higher article processing charges than is widely acknowledged. As the Finch Group states, submission fees do not provide a simple solution to this. We welcome calls for the UK government to set policy to fund article processing charges for open access publication, and that funds must be found to extend rationalise current licenses to enhance access in the UK. NPG agrees that any policy in the UK needs to be in the context of similar moves internationally — recognizing the international nature of research, and the publishing services that support its communication.’
Geoffrey Boulton, chair of the Royal Society working group whose report ‘Science as an open enterprise’ will be launched on Thursday, said:
“Open access is an important issue and the Finch Report recommendations are to be welcomed but open data is a much deeper issue that must also be addressed. People may see the two as interchangeable but they are not necessarily linked. The former is about a business model for scientific publishing, the latter goes to the heart of the way science is done. Ultimately we must focus attention on the bigger picture”
Richard Mollet, CEO of The Publisher’s Association, said:
’The Finch review has been a constructive exercise in terms of bringing a forensic analysis to a complicated area of public policy and achieving a consensus across different stakeholders as to a sustainable path to progress. Its recommendations present an opportunity not only to extend access to research outputs globally but also for stakeholders with different needs and perspectives to collaborate towards converging objectives.
’We are support the balanced recommendations for extending access to research outputs. For the Gold Open Access to be viable it will be important that sufficient funds be available via the research councils, the funding councils and the universities for UK researchers, and that workable systems are implemented to ensure these are delivered to publishers. Where funding for Gold Open Access is not provided, publishers need a commitment from the research funders not to demand embargo periods of less than 12 months for the manuscript to be openly available.
’We wish to extend our thanks to Dame Janet Finch, the review team, and of course all of the members of the Group for the positive and valuable engagement in the process.’
Stuart Taylor, Commercial Director of the Royal Society, said:
’The Royal Society supports open access publishing and welcomes the findings of the Finch Report. The peer review quality control system is the basis on which science moves forward and must remain independent. It is reassuring that the Finch Report recognises this and also the fact that supporting this system costs money. Any sustainable open access publishing model must ensure that these costs are met.
’The Royal Society already has an open access journal, Open Biology, and supports ‘Gold’ open access, as well as other open access routes, for our other journals. We welcome the Finch Report recommendation that this ‘gold’ route be funded through article processing charges paid by the author.
’Many not-for-profit learned societies, including the Royal Society, use income from publishing to support their scientific work and it is important that this point is not forgotten in moving towards a more open system of publishing.’
Professor Sir Peter Knight, President of the IOP, said:
’We fully support the goal of expanding access to research publications but it will be a significant challenge and we are grateful to the working group for conveying how complicated that challenge is.
’The recommendations in the report provide a clear policy direction for the UK and we hope to see a signal from Government that it agrees with the recommendations and that it is willing to fully fund the costs that will make the transition possible.
’The report clearly recognises the challenge the transition poses to learned societies. With more than two-thirds of the Institute’s charitable projects funded by the gift-aided profits from our publishing company, IOP Publishing, it’s crucial to us that the shift is managed carefully.
’For IOP Publishing and the Institute, publishing is not a purely commercial endeavor; it is part of our mission to successfully communicate research findings and help progress science. We take pride in providing a high-quality service to authors and readers.
’Expanding access to research outputs while ensuring the robustness of new publishing models is going to require a transition period, especially when the international nature of academic publishing is taken into consideration. The report’s recommendations, when taken together, will help make the transition possible.
’We will continue to innovate; building on our existing open access and hybrid journals — something IOP Publishing has long excelled in — to contribute to a more open access future.
’We are also delighted to see the recommendation to vigorously pursue the plan to introduce walk-in access to the majority of journals in public libraries. Initially a suggestion from publishers, this initiative can provide great benefit to small businesses and other readers, as well as creating a valuable new role for our public libraries.’
Dr Astrid Wissenburg, Chair of RCUK Impact Group and Director of Communications and Partnership at ESRC, (also RCUK rep on the Finch Group), said:
“Research Councils UK (RCUK) welcomes the report from the national Working Group on Expanding Access to Published Research Findings Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications. The report sets out an encouraging and challenging road map to improve open access to scholarly literature.
’RCUK is strongly committed to improving the access to the outputs of its research, for the benefit of researchers, as well as UK economy and society. We will carefully consider the recommendations from the report, with HEFCE and other stakeholders and, in addition, we will use it to inform the new RCUK Open Access policy, expected to be launched later this summer.”
Sir Mark Walport, Director of the Wellcome Trust, said:
’We are delighted that the Finch Report encourages the UK to embrace open access, something that we at the Wellcome Trust feel very strongly about. There is a real groundswell of opinion in support of open access in the UK, the US, Europe and beyond and this is a real opportunity for the UK to lead the way. Open access is the only way to ensure that important research is made freely accessible to all. It will help drive forward innovation and breakthroughs in medical research.
’We urge publishers to adopt the so-called ‘gold’ open access model, where the publication costs are met by the research funder, rather than the reader, and where articles are licensed in ways which allow others to re-use these works, subject to attribution. This will need the support of all of those that fund and support research, who will need to put into place effective and flexible arrangements to meet these costs, which we anticipate being only 1-1.5% of research costs.’