Conclusions and recommendations
1. It
is discouraging that the Government does not yet appear to have
given much consideration to balancing the needs of the research
community, the taxpayer and the commercial sectors for which it
has responsibility. (Paragraph 22)
2. We are convinced
that the amount of public money invested in scientific research
and its outputs is sufficient to merit Government involvement
in the publishing process. Indeed, we would be very surprised
if Government did not itself feel the need to account for its
investment in the publishing process. We were disappointed by
how little thought has been given to the issues within Government
thus far and hope that this Report will prove to be a catalyst
for change. (Paragraph 24)
3. The backdrop of
international interest and momentum for change sets the scene
for the UK Government to take a lead in establishing an efficient
and sustainable environment for the publication of research findings.
(Paragraph 25)
4. We will give a
copy of this Report to the UK delegates to the Culture, Science
and Education Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council
of Europe. We hope that the Committee will pursue the issues raised
here, both within the Council of Europe and on a wider international
stage. (Paragraph 28)
5. The British Library's
Document Supply Service is an efficient and cost-effective method
of providing access to articles in scientific journals. The decline
in demand for Document Supply notwithstanding, we are persuaded
that the service provides a valuable alternative route for users
who would not otherwise have access to the journals that they
needed. We recommend that the Government takes steps to protect
the service. (Paragraph 31)
6. We are not convinced
that the publisher practice of granting each subscriber access
to a set number of digital "copies" of a journal is
either effective or necessary. We recommend that the Joint Information
Systems Committee strongly argues the case against such restrictive
practices when it negotiates the terms for the next national site
licence with publishers. (Paragraph 32)
7. We congratulate
the Medical Research Council on its support of the principle that
primary research data should be made available to the scientific
community for subsequent research. We recommend that the Research
Councils consider providing funds to enable researchers to publish
their primary data alongside their research findings, where appropriate.
(Paragraph 33)
8. All researchers,
regardless of the nature of their institution, should be granted
access to the scientific journals they need to carry out their
work effectively. (Paragraph 35)
9. We recommend that
the Joint Information Systems Committee and the NHS work together
to implement joint procurement procedures that reflect the close
working patterns of NHS and the higher education sector and represent
value for money for both. (Paragraph 36)
10. Teaching is a
crucial university function. Universities should be permitted,
within reason, to derive maximum value from the digital journals
to which they subscribe by using them for legitimate teaching
purposes. We recommend that future licensing deals negotiated
by the Joint Information Systems Committee explicitly include
provisions to enable journal articles, whether print or digital,
to be used for teaching purposes. (Paragraph 38)
11. It is not for
either publishers or academics to decide who should, and who should
not, be allowed to read scientific journal articles. We are encouraged
by the growing interest in research findings shown by the public.
It is in society's interest that public understanding of science
should increase. Increased public access to research findings
should be encouraged by publishers, academics and Government alike.
(Paragraph 40)
12. We are not convinced
that journal articles are consistently available to members of
the public through public libraries. (Paragraph 42)
13. Digitisation should
facilitate, not restrict access. We recommend that the next national
site licence negotiated by the Joint Information Systems Committee
explicitly provides for all library users without an Athens password
to access the digital journals stocked by their library. (Paragraph
44)
14. Publishers are
to be commended for signing up to laudable schemes such as HINARI,
AGORA and INASP-PERI. We hope that the provision of free and low-cost
access to scientific publications for institutions and researchers
in developing countries will continue to be a significant aspect
of the way that they conduct their businesses. (Paragraph 47)
15. The digitisation
of journals has the potential to greatly increase access to research
findings for researchers in the developing world. (Paragraph 48)
16. We recommend that
the Joint Information Systems Committee develop an independent
set of measures, agreed by subscribers and publishers alike, to
monitor trends in journal pricing. This will help exert pressure
on the publishing industry to self-regulate more effectively and
will give libraries and other users greater knowledge when they
are deciding which subscriptions to take. (Paragraph 53)
17. It is not for
us to pronounce on the acceptability of the profit margins secured
by private sector companies. Nonetheless, high publisher profit
margins need to be set against the context of faltering library
budgets and an impending crisis in STM journals provision. Cancelled
journal subscriptions due to pressures on library budgets will
have a negative impact on publishers. It is thus in everybody's
interest for profit margins to be kept at a reasonable and sustainable
level. We urge publishers to act on the recommendations of this
Report to address these issues. (Paragraph 54)
18. Government invests
a significant amount of money in scientific research, the outputs
of which are expressed in terms of journal articles. It is accountable
for this expenditure to the public. We were dismayed that the
Government showed so little concern about where public money ended
up. (Paragraph 55)
19. We recommend
that the Joint Information Systems Committee ensure that provision
for continuing access in the event of cancellation to articles
published during the subscription period is written into its next
national licensing deal. (Paragraph 61)
20. Increasing usage
rates do not equate to an increased ability for libraries to pay
for journal bundles. The recent availability of usage statistics
should not be used as a justification for publishers to raise
their prices. (Paragraph 66)
21. Although libraries
may aspire to provide access to every scientific journal, they
cannot afford to do this. It is inevitable that difficult choices
between a number of journals with lower usage rates and impact
factors will have to be made. Nonetheless, these decisions should
be made in response to local user needs rather than as a side
effect of bundling. (Paragraph 67)
22. Current levels
of flexibility within the journal bundle do not present libraries
with value for money. Whilst we accept that unbundling STM information
carries risks for the main commercial publishers, only when flexible
bundled deals are made available will libraries achieve value
for money on their subscriptions. Furthermore, although we recognise
that bundled deals may be advantageous to libraries in certain
circumstances, we are concerned about the potential impact bundling
may have on competition, given limited library budgets and sustained
STM journal price growth. (Paragraph 68)
23. Publishers should
publicly acknowledge the contribution of unpaid peer reviewers
to the publishing process. We recommend that they provide modest
financial rewards to the departments in which the reviewers are
based. These rewards could be fed back into the system, helping
to fund seminars or further research. (Paragraph 70)
24. We do not doubt
the central importance of peer review to the STM publishing process.
Nonetheless, we note a tendency for publishers to inflate the
cost to them of peer review in order to justify charging high
prices. This lack of transparency about actual costs hampers informed
debate about scientific publishing. (Paragraph 76)
25. We applaud the
development by publishers of new technologies for digital journals.
Innovative products such as ScienceDirect have brought increased
functionality to researchers and users, making journals a more
valuable research tool. (Paragraph 78)
26. We are persuaded
that the costs to publishers associated with digitisation will
reduce over time. Consequently, we would no longer expect these
costs to be used as a justification for steep increases in prices.
In the meantime we are concerned that financially powerful STM
publishers may be using their strength during this digital transition
period to make excessive profits whilst the going is good (Paragraph
79)
27. We believe that
publishers should make it clear to subscribers what services and
costs are and are not covered by the overall subscription price,
enabling libraries and other users to weigh up the costs and benefits
of taking out the subscription. We urge the Joint Information
Systems Committee and other buying bodies to press for greater
transparency in this area. (Paragraph 80)
28. Like the Office
of Fair Trading, we are not entirely convinced by the cost-justification
argument employed by publishers to explain rising prices. Publishers
undoubtedly add value to the scientific process, but they also
profit from it. (Paragraph 83)
29. It is not enough
for the Government departments involved to declare themselves
to be aware of the problems surrounding the imposition of VAT
on digital, but not print, publications. As the issue is so critical
to the adequate provision of scientific publications and to reaping
the full anticipated benefits from digitisation, we recommend
that DTI, DfES and DCMS all make a strong case to HM Customs and
Excise for a change to the existing VAT regime. (Paragraph 86)
30. We recommend that
HM Customs and Excise make strong and immediate representations
within the European Commission to bring about the introduction
of a zero rate VAT relief for digital journals, in line with the
zero rate currently charged on print journals. (Paragraph 88)
31. We recommend
that HM Customs and Excise exempt libraries from the VAT currently
payable on digital publications whilst it negotiates for a more
permanent solution within the EU. (Paragraph 89)
32. Because library
budgets generally have a fixed ceiling, by increasing prices,
the publisher with the largest share of the budget can gain an
even greater share and may also force other publishers out of
the budget altogether. (Paragraph 93)
33. We recommend that
the Government Response to this Report provides information on
the measures being taken by the Office of Fair Trading to monitor
the market for STM journals. We urge the Office of Fair Trading
to commit to biennial public reporting on the state of the market,
including how STM publication prices are developing; how prices
change following mergers and acquisitions in the sector and the
impact of bundling deals upon competition. (Paragraph 94)
34. We agree that
universities should be able to allocate their budgets locally
in response to the needs of their teaching and research communities.
(Paragraph 96)
35. It is unacceptable
that HEFCE has shown so little interest in library budgets. We
recommend that it commission a study from HEPI to ascertain both
current library funding levels and library funding needs. The
results of this study could be used to inform the allocation of
the block grant. (Paragraph 97)
36. HEFCE has a valuable
role to play in advising universities on library funding requirements.
We recommend that HEFCE establish a code of good practice for
library funding that universities can draw upon when allocating
their budgets. (Paragraph 98)
37. Pressure on library
journal acquisitions budgets has resulted in cancelled subscriptions
and has contributed to a decline in book purchasing. This compromises
the library's ability to provide the full range of services required
by its user community. (Paragraph 99)
38. There is undoubtedly
some scope for libraries to make efficiency savings, as there
is for most organisations. Nonetheless, the valuable services
provided by the library are expensive and staff-intensive. It
is unlikely that libraries will have more to spend on acquisitions
until they see an increase in budgets. (Paragraph 101)
39. Whilst we accept
that it is important that libraries are responsive to local needs,
opting out of national licensing deals negotiated with those needs
in mind only makes the situation faced by libraries worse. (Paragraph
104)
40. We recommend that
the Joint Information Systems Committee negotiate with libraries,
regional purchasing consortia and other national bodies responsible
for procurement to agree a common strategy. Only by combining
their resources will they be able to negotiate a licensing deal
that secures national support and brings real benefits. (Paragraph
105)
41. It is disappointing
that many academics are content to ignore the significant difficulties
faced by libraries. Until they start to see the provision of journals
as, in part, their problem, the situation will not improve. (Paragraph
107)
42. Elsevier is no
sudden convert to Open Access. The company has seen the direction
of trends in publishing and has acted accordingly to minimise
criticism of its current policies. We are in little doubt that
Elsevier timed the announcement of its new policy on self-archiving
to pre-empt the publication of this Report. It is good news that
our inquiry has prompted such a high profile endorsement of increased
access to research papers. Nonetheless, there are a number of
serious constraints to self-archiving in the model proposed by
Elsevier. (Paragraph 112)
43. Institutions need
an incentive to set up repositories. We recommend that the requirement
for universities to disseminate their research as widely as possible
be written into their charters. In addition, SHERPA should be
funded by DfES to allow it to make grants available to all research
institutions for the establishment and maintenance of repositories.
(Paragraph 115)
44. Academic authors
currently lack sufficient motivation to self-archive in institutional
repositories. We recommend that the Research Councils and other
Government funders mandate their funded researchers to deposit
a copy of all their articles in their institution's repository
within one month of publication or a reasonable period to be agreed
following publication, as a condition of their research grant.
An exception would need to be made for research findings that
are deemed to be commercially sensitive. (Paragraph 117)
45. We recommend that
institutional repositories are able to accept charitably- and
privately-funded research articles from authors within the institution,
providing that the funder has given their consent for the author
to self-archive in this way. (Paragraph 118)
46. We recommend that
DCMS provide adequate funds for the British Library to establish
and maintain a central online repository for all UK research articles
that are not housed in other institutional repositories. (Paragraph
118)
47. Institutional
repositories should accept for archiving articles based on negative
results, even when publication of the article in a journal is
unlikely. This accumulated body of material would be a useful
resource for the scientific community. It could help to prevent
duplication of research and, particularly in the field of clinical
research, would be in the public interest. Articles containing
negative findings should be stored within a dedicated section
of the repository to distinguish them from other articles. (Paragraph
118)
48. In order for institutional
repositories to achieve maximum effectiveness, Government must
adopt a joined-up approach. DTI, OST, DfES and DCMS should work
together to create a strategy for the implementation of institutional
repositories, with clearly defined aims and a realistic timetable.
(Paragraph 120)
49. A greater degree
of consistency is desirable in copyright agreements, from publishers,
but also from Government, institutions and academics, who have
the power to influence the terms on which copyright agreements
are established. (Paragraph 121)
50. The issue of copyright
is crucial to the success of self-archiving. We recommend that,
as part of its strategy for the implementation of institutional
repositories, Government ascertain what impact a UK-based policy
of author copyright retention would have on UK authors. Providing
that it can be established that such a policy would not have a
disproportionately negative impact, Research Councils and other
Government funders should mandate their funded researchers to
retain the copyright on their research articles, licensing it
to publishers for the purposes of publication. The Government
would also need to be active in raising the issue of copyright
at an international level. (Paragraph 126)
51. We recommend that
higher education institutions are funded to enable them to assume
control of copyright arising from their research. In order to
carry out this function they will need in-house expertise and
dedicated staff. (Paragraph 127)
52. The cost to the
taxpayer of establishing and maintaining an infrastructure of
institutional repositories across UK higher education would be
minimal, particularly in proportion to the current total UK higher
education spend. When the cost is weighed against the benefits
they would bring, institutional repositories plainly represent
value for money. (Paragraph 130)
53. Having taken the
step of funding and supporting institutional repositories, the
UK Government would need to become an advocate for them at a global
level. If all countries archived their research findings in this
way, access to scientific publications would increase dramatically.
We see this as a great opportunity for the UK to lead the way
in broadening access to publicly-funded research findings and
making available software tools and resources for accomplishing
this work. (Paragraph 131)
54. Peer review is
a key element in the publishing process and should be a pillar
of institutional repositories. We recommend that SHERPA agree
a "kite mark" with publishers that can be used to denote
articles that have been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Upon publication, articles in repositories should be allocated
the kitemark and marked with the date and journal of publication
by the staff member responsible for populating the repository.
Authors depositing articles in institutional repositories should
also be required to declare their funding sources in order to
reduce the risk of conflicts of interest occurring. (Paragraph
135)
55. We recommend that
the Government appoints and funds a central body, based on SHERPA,
to co-ordinate the implementation of a network of institutional
repositories. (Paragraph 136)
56. A Government-established
central body would play a major role in implementing technical
standards across institutional repositories to ensure maximum
functionality and interoperability. (Paragraph 137)
57. We recommend that
DTI works with UK publishers to establish how the industry might
evolve in an environment where other business models flourished
alongside the subscriber-pays model. Government also needs to
become an intelligent procurer, outsourcing some of the technical
work involved in establishing and maintaining institutional repositories
to publishers who already have the relevant infrastructure and
expertise in place. (Paragraph 140)
58. We see institutional
repositories as operating alongside the publishing industry. In
the immediate term they will enable readers to gain free access
to journal articles whilst the publishing industry experiments
with new publishing models, such as the author-pays model. (Paragraph
143)
59. For the Government
either to endorse or dismiss the new publishing model would be
too simplistic. Without any Government action, some authors are
already choosing to publish in journals that use author payments
to recover costs. Author-pays publishing is a phenomenon that
has already arrived: it is for the Government and others to decide
how best to respond. (Paragraph 144)
60. The evidence produced
so far suggests that the author-pays model could be viable. We
recommend that Government mobilise the different interest groups
to support a comprehensive independent study into the costs associated
with author-pays publishing. The study could be used to inform
Government policy and strategy. (Paragraph 150)
61. Encouraging a
public that is more scientifically literate and assisting women
in their pursuit of successful careers in scientific research
have been two of the Committee's longstanding concerns. We support,
in principle, any measure that seeks to further these aims. (Paragraph
156)
62. Although early
indications are positive, it is too early to assess the impact
that author-pays publishing has had on access to scientific publications.
(Paragraph 159)
63. The author-pays
publishing model would be extremely advantageous to researchers
in developing countries, enabling them to keep abreast of research
conducted elsewhere. Financially, author charges would be less
burdensome to researchers in the developing world than current
subscription rates. If the author-pays model were to prevail,
publishers, Government agencies and other donors would need to
adapt existing schemes, such as HINARI, AGORA and INASP-PERI,
to meet the demands of the altered cost recovery model. (Paragraph
162)
64. We recommend that
the Research Councils each establish a fund to which their funded
researchers can apply should they wish to publish their articles
using the author-pays model. The Research Councils will need to
be funded by OST to take account of this increase in costs. We
hope that industry, charity and other Government funders will
consider similar measures. (Paragraph 165)
65. Research Councils
for disciplines that require only limited funding should be funded
to enable them to pay for publication costs where necessary. (Paragraph
166)
66. In order to succeed,
most author-pays publishers, like everyone else, will have to
publish articles of a high quality. It is not, therefore, within
the interest of journals at the higher end of the market to lessen
the rigour of peer review. Nonetheless, there is a risk that lower
quality journals might seek to reduce their quality threshold
in order to generate profit. Were the author-pays publishing model
to prevail it would be vital to ensure that peer review was not
compromised in order to retain confidence in the integrity of
the publishing process. (Paragraph 172)
67. The introduction
of a submission fee would be an important step towards ensuring
the quality of scientific publications and we strongly recommend
that author-pays publishers introduce this system. (Paragraph
174)
68. The commercial
and industrial sectors currently contribute significant funds
to the publishing process through payments for journal subscriptions.
Much of this money would be lost to the system if an author-pays
model were to prevail. This is one of the key issues that needs
to be addressed before the wholescale transition to an author-pays
model can be supported. Government, publishers and industry need
to work together to identify a solution to this problem in order
to avoid a disproportionate increase in the amount of money that
Government invests directly or indirectly in the publishing process.
(Paragraph 177)
69. Learned societies
are greatly valued by the academic and wider research community.
It is of concern to us that learned societies could stand to lose
a substantial portion of their income in a move to the author-pays
publishing model. This is another key issue that proponents of
the author-pays model need to address. (Paragraph 180)
70. We strongly support
further experimentation with the author-pays publishing model.
In the short term Government may need to provide limited financial
assistance to encourage publishers and institutions to take part
in what, for them, may be an expensive process. We applaud the
Joint Information Systems Committee for providing funding for
this purpose so far and hope that it will continue to do so. (Paragraph
184)
71. Author-pays publishing
is a growing phenomenon. Its implementation on any scale will
have important consequences for current funding structures and
the UK publishing industry. So far the Government has shown little
inclination to address this issue. (Paragraph 185)
72. Government has
not shown much evidence of a joined-up approach to the challenges
posed by changes to the model for scientific publishing. Whilst
the central departments have been slow to respond to the author-pays
publishing model, at least two Government-funded bodies have given
public support to it. This creates unnecessary confusion. We recommend
that it formulate a coherent strategy as a matter of urgency.
(Paragraph 186)
73. We are satisfied
that, by scaling publication with research costs, the author-pays
publishing model would ensure a fairer global distribution of
the costs of publishing research findings. (Paragraph 188)
74. The UK would put
itself at a financial disadvantage internationally if it were
to act alone in mandating publicly-funded researchers to publish
in author-pays journals. (Paragraph 189)
75. Institutional
repositories should be a key component of any long-term strategy
to ensure the preservation of digital publications. (Paragraph
193)
76. The British Library
has a crucial role to play in the preservation of digital publications,
both strategically and practically. This is an expensive process.
Whilst the publication of this Report is too late to have any
influence on funding decisions made as part of the 2004 Spending
Review, we strongly support the British Library's call for extra
funding in recognition of the work that it has carried out in
this capacity. Failure of the Government to give adequate funding
to the British Library could result in the loss of a substantial
proportion of the UK's scientific record. (Paragraph 196)
77. It is vital that
work on regulations for the legal deposit of non-print publications
begins as soon as possible. We cannot understand why DCMS has
not yet established the Legal Deposit Advisory Panel. We recommend
that they appoint the panel and begin preliminary work on the
regulations at official level immediately. (Paragraph 199)
78. We recommend that
the first task of the Advisory Panel is to establish definitions
of a digital publication and a UK publication that are flexible
enough to capture material from a range of sources in a range
of formats. (Paragraph 200)
79. The existence
of a secure network between the legal deposit libraries would
create greater efficiencies in the deposit system and would have
the potential to increase access to deposited material. We recommend
that provisions for such a network are made in the regulations
with these two aims in mind. The deposit libraries should be funded
to establish the network. (Paragraph 201)
80. We recommend that
the regulations make provision for the deposit libraries to deliver
digital articles remotely to desktops on the same payment basis
as Document Supply. (Paragraph 202)
81. Gaps of up to
60% in the deposit of electronically-delivered publications, including
STM journals, represent a significant breach in the intellectual
record. It is imperative that work on recovering and purchasing
the missing items begins immediately. The six deposit libraries
will need additional funding to do this. (Paragraph 203)
82. As is the case
with any process, peer review is not an infallible system and
to a large extent depends on the integrity and competence of the
people involved and the degree of editorial oversight and quality
assurance of the peer review process itself. Nonetheless we are
satisfied that publishers are taking reasonable measures to main
high standards of peer review. (Paragraph 207)
| 
