1 Introduction
1. This Committee is appointed by the House of Commons
to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Office
of Science and Technology (OST) and its associated bodies. As
well as its role in advising the Chief Scientific Advisor and
the Director General of the Research Councils on the allocation
of the Science Budget, OST has a role in overseeing science and
technology policy across Government. The Committee has a similarly
broad remit.
2. The scientific, technical and medical publishing
industry has recently come under intense scrutiny. Whilst the
volume of research output and the price of scientific journals
has been steadily increasing - one respected source cites average
journal price increases of 58% between 1998 and 2003 - library
budgets have seen funding decreases.[1]
As a consequence, the ability of libraries to purchase journals
has come under severe pressure. This phenomenon is often dubbed
the "serials crisis". The Government has an interest
in ensuring that public money invested in scientific research
is translated into outputs that benefit the public. The Government
invests significantly in scientific research, the output of which
is, for the most part, published in research articles. Subscription
prices to journals vary - we have been quoted figures from £87
to £2,843 per annum for a range of individual journals of
differing quality.[2] Many
libraries subscribe to thousands of journals each year. Yet whilst
libraries are struggling to purchase journals, scientific, technical
and medical publishers' profit margins remain exceptionally high
compared with the rest of the publishing industry — as much
as 34% at the operating level in the case of Reed Elsevier, the
market leader.[3] There
is mounting concern that the financial benefits from the Government's
substantial investment in research are being diverted to an excessive
degree into the pockets of publishers' shareholders.
3. Technology has made it possible to envisage a
fundamental change to the way scientific articles are published.
By removing some of the non-editorial overheads associated with
print publications, digitisation makes it relatively cheap to
set up and run new journals. The internet makes it feasible, in
theory, for readers to access the articles they need online, without
charge. Several publishing models based around the central concept
of free online access have emerged: collectively their proponents
form the "Open Access" movement. The future of the scientific
publishing industry has yet to be determined in the light of these
new developments.
4. We announced our inquiry into scientific publications
on 10 December 2003. Our aim was to examine the provision of scientific
journals to the academic community and wider public. We wanted
to establish whether the market for scientific publications was
working well; how trends in journal pricing affected libraries
and other users; the impact that new publishing trends would have
on the scientific process; and what provisions were in place to
support a secure national archive. We also looked at the risk
to the integrity of journals posed by scientific fraud and malpractice,
particularly in the light of recent publishing trends. Our inquiry
tapped into an already lively public debate. In 2002, the Office
of Fair Trading conducted an informal consultation on the market
for scientific, technical and medical journals. Its report concluded
that no further action should be taken at present but that further
action might be required in future.[4]
In January 2003 the Wellcome Trust, the UK's biggest single funder
outside Government of medical research, published an analysis
of the scientific publishing market and publicly adopted a pro-Open
Access stance.[5] Many
other organisations have also been prompted into a consideration
of the issues, some taking up the Open Access cause, some defending
the interests of the existing commercial publishers and others
remaining neutral. The arguments on all sides have been aired
extensively in the media and online. The Committee has received
an unprecedented volume of letters expressing support for its
decision to conduct the inquiry. Many individuals and organisations
volunteered to give oral evidence to the inquiry: unfortunately
it was not possible to see everyone in the time available.
5. In the course of our inquiry we held four oral
evidence sessions with Government; the Research Councils; commercial,
not-for-profit and author-pays publishers; libraries and academics.
The transcripts of these sessions are published with this Report,
along with the 150 written submissions we received in response
to our call for evidence and as answers to supplementary questions.
We visited the British Library at St Pancras and Reed Elsevier's
Holborn offices in London and took part in a seminar on scientific
publishing hosted by the Wellcome Trust. We would like to place
on record our thanks to all those who contributed to this inquiry,
by giving evidence or by assisting us on our visits. We would
also like to thank our specialist advisers: David Worlock, the
Chairman of Electronic Publishing Services Limited; and Professor
Michael Elves, formerly the Director of the Office of Scientific
and Educational Affairs at Glaxo Wellcome plc.
1 The Chartered Institute of Library and Information
Professionals, Ev 411 Back
2
Nature Publishing Group, Price List 2004, www.npg.nature.com Back
3
Q 80 Back
4
Office of Fair Trading, The market for scientific, technical
and medical journals (OFT 396), September 2002, p 21 Back
5
The Wellcome Trust, Economic analysis of scientific research
publishing, January 2003. A second report was published in
2004: The Wellcome Trust, Costs and Models in scientific research
publishing, April 2004. Back
|
