APPENDIX 20
Memorandum from the Publishers Association
The Publishers Association (PA) is the leading
organisation representing commercial book, journal and electronic
publishers in the UK.
Given the focus of the Committee's concerns,
we shall confine our comments to matters relating to access to
peer-reviewed scientific journals, as opposed to popular periodicals,
scholarly monographs or research databases.
1. EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
2. The UK has a world class, globally competitive
scientific publishing industry, a success story that we should
applaud. We do recognise however that there are perceptions of
financial stress in certain sectors, and we do acknowledge with
disappointment a degree of frustration that has emerged within
elements of the library and research communities relating to the
cost and availability of scientific publications. The industry
also recognises these problems, and has been investing for years
to deliver solutions.
3. The Committee has invited evidence on
the following points, to which we respond in summary below. We
also offer a more extended analysis related to these issues in
the paper that follows.
4. What impact do publishers' current policies
on pricing and provision of scientific journals particularly "big
deal schemes" have on libraries and the teaching and research
communities they serve?
UK university libraries show an increase of
63% in the total number of their subscriptions over the three
years 1998-99 to 2001-02 (£19). More users are accessing
more research material than ever before for a vastly reduced unit
cost (£21). The great majority of researchers and teachers
have access to the essential information they need (£22).
Publishers also provide free or low cost access to clinicians
and researchers in more than 100 developing countries (£27).
Publishers have invested hundreds of millions of pounds in emerging
technologies to make more research information in electronic form
more accessible than ever before (£10). Market transparency
allows libraries to monitor which journals are being used and
how often, thus steering them towards maintaining access to those
journals most in demand (£37). The unit cost to libraries
of access by their users to individual articles has declined significantly
in recent times (£52).
"Big deals" are not mandatory. They
have been introduced and welcomed by many librarians as a cost-effective
way of providing access to much more content than their original
subscriptions would have provided. Some librarians have decided
against this option originally, or have decided not to renew it.
Many have renewed however.
5. What action should Government, academic
institutions and publishers be taking to promote a competitive
market in scientific publications?
This question suggests that the market is not
competitive. On the contrary, we believe that the market is highly
competitive, as this submission will illustrate. All stakeholders
in the scholarly communication chain should continue to work together
for a sustainable future for essential scientific information.
We believe that a competitive international marketplace, free
from subsidies or interventions that may confer market advantage
or distort competition, must choose which models and which publishers
are best equipped to stay apace with the increasing demand for
information exchange.
We do however encourage Government to introduce
a number of initiatives that can assist scientific publications
(£63-66). These include introducing measures that will lead
to increased spending on academic libraries (the proportion of
library funding spent on acquisitions has been flat for ten years
(£48)); supporting a reduced rate of VAT for essential scientific
information (£64); encouraging collaboration that will lead
to a secure back archive for scientific information (£65);
and encouraging the development of enhanced national site licences
(£66).
6. What are the consequences of increasing
numbers of open-access journals, for example for the operation
of the Research Assessment Exercise and other selection processes?
Should the Government support such a trend and if so how?
A core value of scientific journal publishing
rests upon the unimpeachable principle that articles are accepted
for publication solely on their merit and on their potential to
add to the archive of scientific knowledge (£12). Once financial
or any other type of patronage is introduced, this independence
and objectivity is compromised (£30). The nationality, affiliation
or ability of an individual author to pay should be discounted
alongside the quality of their message. Only through this methodology
can research assessment be conducted on a basis of meritocracy.
Scientific endeavour is ill served if the researcher cannot easily
tell which version of an article is the fully authenticated "minute
of scientific record" (£25). We would urge caution that
publishing models need to be proven as capable of meeting the
needs of the scientific community before becoming the subject
of dirigiste mandates (£42). Open access is just one
model amongst several capable of funding a journal (£43).
7. How effectively are the Legal Deposit
Libraries making available non-print scientific publications to
the research community, and what steps should they be taking in
this respect?
The principal purpose of legal deposit is to
ensure preservation of electronic publications for the benefit
of future researchers (£56). Publishers' associations, working
closely with the British Library, have fully supported the process
leading to the 2003 Legal Deposit Libraries Act, and they will
be engaged with the regulatory process hereafter (£55). Individual
publishers are also in discussions with deposit libraries as to
how best to achieve the long term security of digital scientific
literature. We need jointly to find the investment to collate
these initiatives (£57), and more importantly to identify
the more significant investment required to capture and retain
the high functionality of existing content databases that publishers
have built.
8. What impact will trends in academic journal
publishing have on the risks of scientific fraud and malpractice?
The objectivity of publishing selection must
be sacrosanct and the quality and integrity of the editorial and
peer review process is paramount. Researchers must know that a
published article is the fully authenticated minute of scientific
record (£25). For journal editors and reviewers, this is
their principal objective. Journal publishers must and do employ
an editorial staff of a very high academic standard. Any methodology
for publication must preserve these principles, for which there
is a cost. We are not convinced that current thinking behind the
economics of open access makes due allowance for this.
The publisher has a guardianship role in the
protection of copyright, and in being the trusted source of the
definitive and authoritative copy of the finished article (£29).
The decision to publish must not depend on payment or subsidy
(£30). Publishers take responsibility to ensure that the
content they publish is legally sound and to defend it against
any threats or actions. This vetting and supervision role represents
a significant barrier to any potential malpractice (£31).
9. THE SCIENTIFIC
JOURNAL
10. The researcher's primary aim is to reach
other scholars in the same field. Articles are written for a peer
audience, not primarily for the general public. (Popular scientific
periodicals are published with that purpose in mind.) Publication
and effective dissemination to the peer community are absolutely
vital to researchers in terms of tenure and the capacity to attract
research grants and university funding. The STM journal publisher's
primary aim is to achieve this dissemination on their behalf,
and to ensure that the great majority of researchers have access
to the information they need. So publishers work closely with
researchers and librarians to drive the effective dissemination
of research information. They have invested hundreds of millions
of pounds in emerging technologies to make more research information
in electronic form more accessible than ever before.
11. It could be argued that a public and
permanent "minute of scientific record" is best served
by robust, sustainable and scalable publishing. "Each scholarly
activity has a mechanism by which it publishes "the durable
manifestation of the research activity it embraces".[29]
There are several services the formal record performs:
1. It is a public and permanent record of
the achievements of the discipline. (Note that many informal forms
are transitory.)
2. It is a peer reviewed, quality assured
record which meets the performance criteria of the discipline.
It may also be a record which obeys the specialist conventions
and language of the discipline which facilitates swift communication
with fellow scholars (and may make it impenetrable to other readers).
3. It is a statement of the current state
of knowledge in the discipline.
4. It provides a place for authors to register
their achievements by which means they are assessed by colleagues
for career progression, status in the field, serve as a means
of attracting new recruits, etc." [30]
12. Journals provide a neutral process to
help scientists communicate. For scientists as both authors and
readers, nothing matters more than the quality of the article.
The prestige of journals is built on such quality, and on this
alone. The quality standard derives from the process of peer review.
It is this that distinguishes the scientific journal from other
means of communication [see Annex 1]. Recent reports in the press
have highlighted the dangers of claims (in the human cloning arena)
which have not been subjected to the rigours of peer review without
payment.
13. THE SCIENTIFIC
JOURNALS INDUSTRY
14. The world of scientific journals is
characterised by enormous diversity and choice, and by innovation
and investment. There are over 16,000 active, peer-reviewed scientific
journals worldwide, publishing around 1.4 million peer-reviewed
papers per year. The number of peer-reviewed journals has grown
and continues to grow at a remarkably consistent rate of around
3.5% each year since the 18th century. Around one million unique
authors are published each year, and 2.5 million authors over
five years, to a readership estimated at around 10 million. [31]
15. UK research authors are significant
net exporters of UK expertise, as measured by the volume of their
contributions to scientific journals. UK authors published over
65,000 scientific articles in 2002[32],
of which 84% derive from publicly funded institutions, especially
the universities and medical schools. Globally it is estimated
that 75% of published articles derive from academic sources, whereas
75% of readings derive from corporate or non-academic sectors.
[33]
16. Total spending by UK academic libraries
on all journals in the year 2001-02 was £81.9 million, a
rise of 5.9% from the previous year and representing 55% of a
total acquisitions spending of £149 million. [34]
UK based journals publishers (all sectors) are estimated to generate
subscription revenues of upwards to £750 million, [35]
and the global market for STM journals has been estimated at $3.5
billion, or £2 billion. [36]
(Journals in turn are estimated to represent 50% of the total
STM scholarly communications industry.) The UK industry is thus
a significant net exporter of scientific publications. For many
UK based journal publishers, their UK subscriptions will in fact
amount to only 10% of their global subscription revenues. A significant
proportion of those revenues derive from the commercial and non-academic
sectors.
17. The UK industry includes a few large
publishers, together with a large number of smaller and society
publishers. The major commercial publishers of STM journals operating
in the UK are Elsevier, Wiley, Taylor & Francis, Blackwell
Publishing, and Nature Publishing Group, together with Oxford
University Press and Cambridge University Press. These seven players,
together with the two largest society publishers—Institute
of Physics and Royal Society of Chemistry—will represent
at least 65% share of global subscriptions to UK based scientific
journals. However, of the 16,000 active, peer-reviewed scientific
journals worldwide, only around one quarter are published by the
five largest commercial publishers. The average number of journals
published by all scientific publishers is less than two. [37]
18. Commercial publishers complement the
activities of learned societies, often operating as professional
publishing partners on behalf of societies who do not wish or
are unable to publish for themselves. UK commercial publishers
produce over 1,650 scientific journals under contract on behalf
of UK learned societies or through society affiliations with journals
owned and published by commercial publishers[38].
Commercial publishers also support emerging academic disciplines
in a creative and entrepreneurial way by proactively developing
new journals and through publishing journals in areas of research
where there is no relevant learned society. Individual publishers
may provide examples.
19. In recent times, the market has been
characterised by a variety of "big deals" between library
consortia and publishers, whereby libraries acquire access to
a wider range of electronic versions in return for a marginal
increase in cost over the price previously paid for their print
subscriptions. UK university libraries show an increase of 63.3%
in the total number of their subscriptions over the three years
1998-99 to 2001-02[39].
Individual publishers will be able to submit evidence as to the
nature of these deals, with case studies.
20. ACCESS TO
SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS
21. Scientific research has never been more
accessible. Tremendous efforts have already been made by publishers
to increase electronic access to research literature, with more
users accessing more research material than ever before for a
vastly reduced unit cost, via site- and consortium-licensing agreements
and multi-publisher linking services such as CrossRef [see Annex
2]. Publishers have invested heavily in developing and applying
the technology that meets the needs of researchers and those who
wish to access secure research results in the context of a trusted
and branded environment. Individual publishers may submit evidence
of their access statistics.
22. We believe that the "turnaway"
(failure to gain access) rate is around 10%40,[40]
from which we conclude that the great majority of researchers
and teachers have access to the essential information they need.
Other services such as document delivery (in particular the service
operated by the British Library's Document Supply Centre, now
moving into electronic delivery) and inter-library loan for libraries
without subscriptions ensure that any researcher, and indeed any
member of the public, has access to any article they may want
for private study and research.
23. Apart from individual access to journal
articles via their library or university network, teachers and
students also benefit from the CLA[41]
licence for higher education, which enables teachers to copy an
article from any journal they own, or order from a document delivery
service, for the purposes of course packs and handouts. This blanket
licence costs the universities just four pounds per full time
student, and negotiations have begun to extend the licence to
include the right to scan material for use in electronic course
packs.
24. Concerns about free access to scholarly
information can and increasingly are being met through electronic
preprint services, institutional repositories and university web
sites. The great majority of publishers permit and support such
access to original research material in the form of preprints
that are clearly identified as such. [42]
The publishers' particular concern is to manage access to the
value added version, which incorporates their investment in editing,
in peer review, in content formatting, in costly IT infrastructure,
in associated functionality, in marketing, and in building the
prestige of journal brands.
25. Publishers do not stand in the way of
free access to the scholarly content in its original preprint
form, but scientific endeavour is ill served if the researcher
cannot easily tell which version of an article is the fully authenticated
"minute of scientific record". The publisher takes full
responsibility for version control and managing this authentication
service on behalf of authors, a vital concern for the legacy of
scientific integrity.
26. Publisher-led international standards
for cross-linking and identification have all made seamless navigation
possible across a growing web of published resources. Flexible
licensing arrangements allow access both from within a subscribing
organisation and from home and "pay-per-view" technology
allows access to non-subscribers at a reasonable price.
27. The HINARI and AGORA programmes run
by WHO and FAO in partnership with UK and international journal
publishers also provide free or low cost access to clinicians
and researchers in more than 100 developing countries. Both programmes
were initiated by the commercial publishing sector [see Annex
3].
28. THE ROLE
OF THE
PUBLISHER
29. The current system has evolved to offer
integrity to all research, no matter what its origin or the resources
supporting it. The intrinsic quality of the article itself is
the sole criterion for publication, unaffected by the author's
ability to pay, and immune to any external interference. The decision
to publish in no way depends on external payment or subsidy, and
pressures from orthodoxy are minimal. The effective operation
of this trusted process of publication is fundamental to reducing
the risk of scientific fraud and to the integrity of the scientific
process. The publisher has a guardianship role in the protection
of copyright (for example from unauthorised reproduction, corruption,
or modification) and in being the trusted source of the definitive
and authoritative copy of the finished article.
30. "The only alternative to a copyright
system would seem to be a system of patronage or a system of subsidies
for creators of copyright material paid by the state from public
funds. Such a system has in the long run two inevitable consequences.
The representatives of the state will subsidise what they would
like to see published and once they pay for it or subsidise it
they will feel they have a right to influence and possibly censor
it. Copyright laws cannot create freedom of speech but such freedoms
will be diminished unless those who create copyright material
can do so without financial dependence on anyone." [43]
31. Publishers are in effect the agents
or managers of the authors' copyright or licensed material (IPR).
They are the neutral third party registrars of scientific information.
They are able to protect the author against abuse of their copyright,
and to take legal action as appropriate. It is far from clear
whether and how such protection may operate under an "open
access"[44]
system of publication, and it seems likely that authors would
remain unprotected, publishing entirely at their own cost and
risk. Publishers traditionally take responsibility to ensure that
the content they publish is legally sound and will defend it against
any threats or actions. This vetting and supervision represents
a significant barrier to any potential malpractice, particularly
important in medical publishing.
32. Publishers work closely with scholars
as independent editors, referees and contributors to the journals
they publish. They represent professional publishing partners
for individual scholars and for learned societies. Publishers
facilitate peer review, provide professional copy-editing services
to improve readability and consistency, market worldwide to the
peer community of the authors they publish, and manage distribution
functions optimally and consistently. They also add value to the
published article through organisation, linking and access arrangements,
and are evolving towards the integration of multimedia components
alongside text.
33. Publishers fund these functions and
ideally make a surplus sufficient to invest for future costs and
developments. Many learned societies choose to publish through
commercial publishers (£18) to exploit their efficiency or
to hedge the financial risk associated with publication. Publishers
experiment with new technology, but on the basis of a clear economic
model in order to make the surplus necessary to fund future operations
and to ensure continuity. Publishing at a loss or via subsidies
is not a long-term option for the publisher, journal editors,
or research authors.
34. The market for scientific publications
is no longer just about the prestige of journals, or making available
flat text. The key demand from researchers is for content functionality.
The economics of harnessing the functionality of the Internet
make significant and continuing demands on funds for investment
and development, which in turn has implications for publishers'
margins, their business models which generate funding for forward
investment, and for sustaining continuing access to the back archive.
35. MARKET COMPETITION
36. The UK benefits from a healthy export-oriented
scientific publishing industry (£16) whose financial return
is related to risk and investment, just like any other industry.
The industry supports many primary jobs, particularly in London,
Oxford and Cambridge. The source of all such investment in a commercial
environment is not subsidies from government (ultimately the taxpayer)
or from charitable foundations (with their favourable tax status),
but profit. Such trading surplus also supports essential lower-margin
product development, such as starting up new journals, developing
current journals (driven by the requirements of new scientific
disciplines and ever-increasing research output), publishing scientific
monographs and compiling major reference works.
37. Usage statistics such as the COUNTER
protocol are making the market more competitive [see Annex 4].
These statistics allow libraries to monitor which journals are
being used and how often, thus steering them towards maintaining
access to those journals most in demand. As a result of this market
transparency, publishers will have even more incentive to ensure
that their journals are of the highest quality and that they are
effectively marketed—with the result that users will progressively
receive an even better service.
38. Publishers compete intensively for the
quality of authorship which will drive the prestige of their journal.
Rejection rates for the most prestigious journals with a wide
remit can run up to 95%, with very strong competition for the
best papers. Any researcher seeking publication has available
a wide choice of journals accessed regularly by other researchers
in their field, ranging from specialist journals aimed at a narrow
research community through to the more general journals with a
wider circulation.
39. This diversity protects the ability
of authors to publish where they choose. Similarly, societies
can and frequently do shop around the commercial publishers as
professional providers of publishing services. Transfer of society
journals between publishers is common, stimulating these publishers
constantly to enhance their service proposition and the financial
return to the society. This surplus is traditionally re-invested
for the benefit of the society and its community. Without the
profits from publishing, schemes such as the recently announced
student bursary scheme from the Institute of Physics may not be
sustainable.
40. DIVERSITY
AND MARKET
DEVELOPMENT
41. Disciplines differ in their communication
practices and publishers work within these differences to maximise
useful dissemination. The PA applauds the diversity that has emerged
to drive the wide dissemination of independently validated research.
This diversity extends to ownership, funding models, frequency
of publication, multimedia formats, and linkages to data resources.
We approach a new and exciting future for publishing the formal
record of scientific research with open minds and without prejudice.
42. We welcome experimentation with new
models which can ensure the effective flow of scholarly information
and continuity of the archival record of trusted knowledge. There
are no significant barriers to the establishment of new journals,
whatever their financial model. Low barriers to entry stimulate
new models and product concepts, which demonstrate a dynamic and
healthy marketplace. We would however urge caution that experiments
and theoretical models need to be proven as capable of meeting
the needs of the scientific community before becoming the subject
of dirigiste mandates, especially since we believe that
the great majority of researchers needing access already have
it.
43. There has been much debate of late concerning
the desirability and viability of an open access model[45]
for journal publication, whereby costs are recovered from a fee
charged to authors accepted for publication (who have access to
the necessary funds), and the services for which the publisher
charges thereby change from access services to publication services.
A number of UK commercial and learned society publishers have
experimented with such a model in various forms, but we would
emphasise at this stage that open access is just one model amongst
several capable of funding a journal, and the economics of an
open access system have yet to be thoroughly explored through
experience. To date less than 5% of scholarly output is published
through open access journals. Competition between the various
models is healthy and should be encouraged, although it is unlikely
that any one model can prove to be a panacea in all circumstances.
44. Journals published using radical economic
models may yet benefit scholars, but the long-term viability of
such models is still in doubt. The processing charges currently
quoted for publication in open access journals do not align with
the estimated costs of publication under the current system [see
Annex 5]. Recent research poses the question of whether, following
a consistent analysis of the "cost per article reading",
open access articles may not be cheaper than traditional models[46].
45. We harbour unease about the potential
for bias in an open access publishing model based on grants, sponsorship
and patronage. Those who can pay will get published, but what
security is there for those who cannot? Such a system is likely
to favour the developed world over the developing world, and the
better endowed US-based researchers over their European colleagues.
The concept is essentially payment for publishing services, and
it seems to us inevitable that submission fees will follow. Will
reviewers then demand payment, and what will be the consequences
for the integrity of peer review?
46. FUNDING ACCESS
TO SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATIONS
47. The increase in the volume of research
output has resulted in journals expanding in size and new journals
starting. Funding for research has outstripped inflation (and
library budgets). So therefore has the quantity of research needing
publication, and thus journal prices.
48. It is clear that library budgets have
not kept pace with the increase in research output. Consortia
deals have gone some way towards mitigating this, allowing libraries
to subscribe to a wider range of journals in recent years, but
the libraries' share of total UK university funding has remained
virtually static over the last ten years—2.8% in the old
universities, and 3.6% in the new universities—and has in
fact declined from 3.1% in 1998-99 to 2.8% in 2001-02 in the old
universities, and from 3.8% to 3.6% in the new universities over
the same period[47].
The proportion of total library funds spent on acquisitions has
increased only marginally in the period 1994-95 to 2001-02 (from
32.8% to 33.4%), but the proportion spent on periodicals has been
flat (21% in old universities and 15% in new universities) [48].
49. The net cost to support the output of
UK-based researchers under an open access, author pays system
could amount to considerably more than the subscription costs
currently being paid by research-intensive UK institutions. There
is currently a lack of evidence that access would actually rise
under such a system, or that research impact would improve. The
net beneficiaries would be corporate subscribers to publicly funded
research (£15), who would then have the benefit of such research
for free, and of course the consumers of scientific research in
other countries, who would in effect be subsidised by UK public
funds. As net producers of research content, UK academic researchers
subsidise net consumers, such as the pharmaceutical industry and
Japan.
50. Neither the government nor charitable
institutions and their donors currently pay for the process of
publication of scientific information, other than through institutional
library budgets. It is likely that wholesale transfer to an open
access, author pays system of publication would produce a significant
increase in the net cost of publication of UK-funded research,
since UK researchers are proportionately net exporters of articles
published. The aggregate cost of funding the fees of UK authors
published in scientific journals would exceed the current cost
of subscriptions to library budgets.
51. It has been claimed that the price increases
of commercial publishers cannot be justified in relation to the
overall rate of inflation in the economy, but general inflation
alone cannot determine the price that publishers must charge in
order to sustain forward investment. Allowance must be made for
the volume increase in research output needing publication (which
alone would add 3% to prices each year), for the cost of starting
and supporting new journals (which can take five to ten years
to become established and achieve profitability), for the cost
of providing the content functionality which researchers now require,
and for the rationalisation and consolidation of journal holdings
by libraries as library budgets have failed to keep pace with
the growth in research budgets—which has resulted in declining
numbers of subscriptions over which fixed costs can be recovered.
52. The average cost of subscription to
a scientific journal increased by only 2.5% in the period 2001-03,
and to a medical journal by 5.2%. In both cases, the average cost
of subscription went down by over 2% in 2003. [49]
Given the enhanced access gained by libraries through consortium
arrangements and improvements in content functionality delivered
by publishers' investment, the unit cost to libraries of access
by their users to individual articles has in fact declined significantly
in recent times.
53. The funding debate is essentially about
access to research information deriving from institutions other
than the one with which the researcher or fundholder is associated.
Researchers will always have access to the results of research
conducted within their own institution, or supported by their
own funds. The "pay twice" argument is fallacious. Publishers
always allow for offprints for such purposes and do not stand
in the way of dissemination of research results within the institution
which fostered the research in the first place. Paying for the
process of publication elsewhere is another matter.
54. LEGAL DEPOSIT
55. The Committee has asked about the role
of the British Library and the other UK deposit libraries in providing
access to research information. The Legal Deposit Libraries Act
of October 2003 establishes a mechanism which will lead to the
legal deposit of electronic publications. The PA in particular,
working closely with the British Library, has fully supported
the process leading to this Act, and publishers will through their
representative associations be engaged with the regulatory process
hereafter. A voluntary system of electronic deposit has been in
place since 2000, managed by a joint committee of the deposit
libraries and publisher associations, and this activity continues
in order to inform the process of future legal deposit. The British
Library will be able to submit evidence on the Act and the joint
committee.
56. The principal purpose of legal deposit
however is to ensure preservation of electronic publications for
the benefit of future researchers. Legal deposit copies will be
accessible within the deposit libraries themselves, but cannot
provide extended access other than through site licence negotiations.
57. It is possible, even probable, that
these legal deposit copies may provide the key to the problem
of establishing a secure back archive of electronic publications
which neither the publishers nor the dispersed library community
can solve alone. Government should encourage collaboration between
the publishing and library communities in order to arrive at a
secure sustainable solution to this issue. This is critical for
the effective migration from print to electronic delivery, bringing
the associated benefits to the research community of full exploitation
of the emerging technologies for search, discovery and access.
58. MARKET EVOLUTION
59. The PA has recently assisted the Centre
for Information Behaviour and the Evaluation of Research (Ciber)
unit at City University to undertake the most comprehensive independent
study to date into research authors' priorities, experiences and
concerns. The authors of this research will submit their results
independently as evidence to the Committee[50].
This research may help to inform a debate about the structure
of the market for scientific publications that to date has been
characterised more by assertions and rhetoric than by hard evidence.
60. We urge an evidence-based appraisal
of the realistic benefits of the current paradigm for dissemination
and the role of publishers in the complex web of scholarly communication.
Markets naturally drive evolution. All stakeholders in the scholarly
communication chain should continue to work together for a sustainable
future for essential scientific information.
61. We believe that a competitive international
marketplace, free from subsidies or interventions that may confer
market advantage or distort competition, must choose which models
and which publishers are best equipped to stay apace with the
increasing demand for information exchange. "It is too early
to assess what will be the impact of this combination of ICT and
academic power, but there is a possibility that it will be a powerful
restraint on exploiting positional advantage in the STM journals
market." [51]
It is evident that such a market correction is taking place, supported
by publishers through price restraint (£52), by experimentation
with alternative business models, and by launching new journals
and new types of journals, which generate fresh competition. This
is not the time for Government intervention in this market process.
62. WHAT CAN
THE GOVERNMENT
DO TO
ASSIST SCIENTIFIC
PUBLICATIONS?
63. The Government should introduce measures
which will lead to increased spending on academic libraries and
should encourage institutions to reappraise their library resources
in relation to increases in research output, in relation to overall
university spending, in relation to the effective exploitation
of new communication technologies and the information needs of
their researchers.
64. In order to encourage the transition
to receiving scientific information in electronic form, the Government
should support a reduced rate of VAT for essential scientific
information in electronic form as part of the EU debate on the
harmonisation of VAT. (Journals in printed form are currently
zero-rated for VAT in the UK.) Alternatively, the Government should
consider allowing relief to be attached to the UK-based institutional
recipients of essential scientific information to be used for
educational purposes, if not to the content itself.
65. The Government should encourage mechanisms
for effective collaboration between the publishing and library
communities in order to ensure a secure back archive for scientific
information published solely in electronic form. Such an arrangement
would need to extend beyond arrangements for legal deposit, which
will provide access only in the deposit libraries themselves.
66. The Government should encourage the
development of enhanced national site licences for electronic
journals. There have been attempts and initiatives to achieve
this in the past, particularly NESLi[52],
but none has delivered an entirely effective solution for the
benefit of researchers and the wider educational community. A
concerted effort involving the funding bodies, the JISC and the
publishing community is capable of delivering a rapid solution.
Extra funding may be required, but such an initiative may cost
the UK less than universal open access, while also giving wide
access to research results originating both from the UK and internationally.
February 2004
29 T. Becher, Academic tribes and territories: intellectual
enquiry and the cultures of disciplines, Society for Research
into Higher Education and Open University Press, 1989 Back
30
K. Eason, A comparative analysis of the role of multi-media electronic
journals in scholarly disciplines, section 3.2.2 (www.ukoln.ac.uk/services/elib/papers/tavistock/eason/eason.html). Back
31
These data derive from M A Mabe, The Growth and Number of Journals,
in Serials 16 (2), 191-7, 2003 and from M A Mabe & M Amin,
Dr Jekyll and Dr Hyde: Author Reader Asymmetries in Scholarly
Publishing in ASLIB Proceedings 54 (3), 149-175, 2002. Back
32
Institute of Scientific Information National Science Indicators. Back
33
Quoted by Carol Tenopir, http://web.utk.edu/tenopir/ Back
34
University Library Spending on Books, Journals, and Electronic
Resources (2004 Update), The Publishers Association, Table 3.1a. Back
35
Publishers Association internal survey, based on publishers'
own data and estimates of market share from subscription agents. Back
36
Electronic Publishing Services Market Monitor: STM, November
2003. Back
37
Reported by the Association of Subscription Agents. Back
38
Publishers Association internal survey. Back
39
University Library Spending on Books, Journals, and Electronic
Resources (2004 Update), Table 3.1c. Back
40
Publishers Association internal survey. Back
41
Copyright Licensing Agency, www.cla.co.uk. The CLA develops and
sells voluntary licences for the collective management of reprographic
activity and is owned by the Publisher Licensing Society and the
Authors Licensing and Collecting Society. Back
42
The JISC-funded RoMEO project investigated the rights issues
surrounding the self-archiving of research in the UK academic
community. See www.lboro.ac.uk/departments/ls/disresearch/romeo/ Back
43
From S. M. Stewart, International Copyright and Neighbouring
Rights, Butterworths, 2nd edition, p 343. Back
44
For the purposes of this paper, we take "open access publication"
to mean the following, as proposed by both the Bethesda Statement
on Open Access Publishing (June 2003) and the Berlin Declaration
on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities (October
2003): 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all
users a free, irrevocable, worldwide, perpetual right of access
to and a licence to copy, use, distribute, transmit and display
the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works,
in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to
proper attribution of authorship, as well as the right to make
a small number of printed copies for their personal use. 2. A
complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including
a copy of the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard
electronic format is deposited immediately upon initial publication
in at least one online repository that is supported by an academic
institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well-established
organisation that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution,
interoperability, and long term archiving. Back
45
See footnote to paragraph 31. Back
46
See for example: Jonas Holmstrom, The Cost per Article Reading
of Open Access Articles, D-Lib Magazine, January 2004. (www.dlib.org/dlib/january04/holstrom/01holstrom.htlm). Back
47
University Library Spending on Books, Journals, and Electronic
Resources (2004 Update), The Publishers Association, Table
3.3. Back
48
University Library Spending on Books, Journals, and Electronic
Resources (2004 Update), The Publishers Association, Tables
3.5b and 3.5c. Back
49
University Library Spending on Books, Journals, and Electronic
Resources (2004 Update), The Publishers Association, Table
3.10d. Back
50
Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors
want? Report to be prepared by David Nicholas, Ciber unit, City
University (email: nicky@soi.city.ac.uk), www.soi.city.ac.uk/organisation/is/research/ciber Back
51
OFT statement, The market for scientific, technical and medical
journals, section 7.8, September 2002. Back
52
The national e-journals initiative, www.nesli2.ac.uk Back
| 
