APPENDIX 36
Memorandum from the British Entomological
and Natural History Society
This submission addresses the difficulties experienced
by amateur and unsalaried researchers and by independent consultants
when needing to access scientific journals. Today such people
are making an increasingly important contribution to research
in biodiversity, conservation and taxonomy. Current trends in
publishing seem unlikely to benefit such researchers. This submission
concentrates on the field of entomology but is probably equally
relevant to other fields of whole organism biology.
THE BRITISH
ENTOMOLOGICAL AND
NATURAL HISTORY
SOCIETY
1. The BENHS is a membership-based charity
founded in 1872. Its aims are the promotion and advancement of
research in entomology with particular emphasis on taxonomy, ecology
and conservation. It has a library and taxonomic collections that
are available, at no charge, to members and non-members, and which
are housed in a purpose built building. The Society publishes
a refereed journal, with a circulation of around 1,050, and major
identification guides to the British insect fauna. The Society
has about 900 members who are a mixture of amateur and professional
entomologists with the former making up the majority. There are
no paid staff and all the Society's activities are maintained
by volunteers.
THE CONTRIBUTION
OF THE
SOCIETY'S
MEMBERS TO
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH
2. Within the field of entomology, much
of the research supporting the government's Biodiversity Action
Plan involves our members working either as self-employed consultants
or as unpaid volunteers. It is probably true to say that this
work could not continue were it to rely on researchers from universities
and other institutions. The same is true in the field of insect
conservation in general. The difficulties faced by universities
and museums in finding funding to support taxonomic research mean
that increasingly this work is being done by unpaid workers not
linked to any institution. Some may never have received formal
training, others may be retired professionals but all are amateurs
in the true sense of the word. For some groups of insects our
national experts are amateur workers. All these people need access
to the scientific literature to progress their research effectively.
ACCESS TO
SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS
Current and future access and the problems involved
3. Our members access the literature in
the following ways,
3.1 As external readers of university or
national museum libraries. This may involve paying a subscription
and travel costs. Access granted is unlikely to include borrowing.
There may be restricted access to on-line journals, as the libraries'
subscriptions to these journals do not allow access to external
readers. As the uptake of on-line journals, to the exclusion of
printed journals, increases, so the usefulness of these libraries
to the amateur will decrease, unless the on-line subscription
rules are changed. Will access to on-line journals include printing
them out and, if so, at what cost? Photocopying charges at some
institutions (eg the Natural History Museum) are already set at
unrealistically high prices; there will be a temptation to do
the same with printing charges; this should be resisted.
3.2 Via a local authority lending library.
Currently this involves using the British Library's inter-library
loan service from Boston Spa. The time taken to deliver and return
such loans can mean that there is little time available within
the loan period to read the material; this problem should be addressed.
Inter-library loans are not really viable for large scale requests
and do not allow for browsing. At first sight, on-line journals
would seem to offer a solution, but local libraries are not going
to be able to afford to subscribe to them. As on-line journals
become more common, will hard copy journals still be available
from Boston Spa? A solution would be to allow electronic transfer
of requested items to local libraries, but would copyright considerations
and library budgets allow this?
3.3 Via the libraries of learned and other
societies. These may be for members only or have restricted access
for non-members. Their opening times may be very restricted and,
except for one or two societies, their holdings are not comprehensive.
An amateur may need to join several societies in order to obtain
a good coverage of journals. Such libraries find it difficult
to pay the subscriptions of commercially published journals and
hence their holdings are restricted. These libraries would seem
to be likely to benefit from cheaper on-line subscriptions but
there would be a capital cost, in providing the computer software
and hardware, which they may not be able to afford. In addition
society libraries often benefit from arrangements whereby the
journals they publish themselves are exchanged free of charge
for the journals published by other societies. This practice is
under threat from the growing tendency for UK societies and institutions
to use commercial publishing houses to produce their journals.
These exchanges may also be threatened by the extension of on-line
publication, and so the benefit from cheaper on-line subscriptions
may be countered by having more subscriptions to pay.
3.4 As a favour from a friend or former
colleague working in a university or other institute. This may
be quite common but is unlikely to be appreciated by the friend's
employer and there could be copyright issues. It is unlikely to
be useful for anything other than occasional need. E-publishing
is unlikely to change this situation.
3.5 By personal subscription to journals.
Although personal subscriptions are usually lower than those paid
by institutions, individuals are unlikely to be able to afford
more than one or two subscriptions to print journals. The cost
of on-line subscriptions does not seem to be sufficiently low
to enable individuals to take out more subscriptions, than they
already do for print journals, and, of course, such individuals
have to pay for the time on-line themselves.
3.6 By using secondary sources such as textbooks.
Textbooks are likely to reflect the views of the author(s), they
may not give a balanced account and they may not be comprehensive.
No effects of e-publishing have yet been discerned on this route
to knowledge.
CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
4. While, at first sight, it appears that
e-publishing should benefit the amateur and unpaid researcher
as journals can be down-loaded onto their home PCs, the cost of
doing this will put it out of the reach of most of them. Such
people are in danger of being left behind by the publishing revolution.
It is important to remember one large difference between the salaried
and unsalaried researcher. This is that while the former gets
their internet access free of charge (via their employer), the
latter has to pay for it. Future policy should take this into
account.
5. To counter the problems outlined above,
publicly funded scientific institutions should be required to
welcome, not just tolerate, external readers and to give them
full access (including browsing) to scientific journals in all
formats. It is understood that a small fee would be reasonable
for providing this service. It is to be hoped that inability to
pay the fee would not deny access to the service. The problem
of accessing on-line journals from local lending libraries needs
to be addressed, if this is not already being done. A number of
the problems highlighted above concern the cost of access. These
problems might be overcome by making grants available to bona
fide, and otherwise unfunded, researchers to enable them to
visit libraries and carry out literature searches.
THE PRICE
OF SCIENTIFIC
JOURNALS
6. Scientific journals are published by
societies and other institutions, by not-for-profit publishers,
by commercial publishers on their own behalf and by commercial
publishers on behalf of societies. The products of the two latter
are unlikely to be found in the homes of many amateurs.
7. The most disturbing trend in recent years
has been for societies to make arrangements for commercial publishers
to publish their journals. Such arrangements seem to be regarded
by the treasurers of these societies as a cash cow to be milked.
While the offers made by these commercial publishers may be very
tempting, it may be that it is the societies themselves and the
scientific community that is being milked. Effectively these become
commercial journals, but ones that need to make a profit for both
the publisher and the society. This trend to commercial publishing
seems to be a very British affair; elsewhere in Europe most societies
still publish their own journals. Here we are faced with high-priced
commercially produced journals. The independent researcher may
be able to afford the subscription to just one of these journals.
It is not just the independent researcher who stands to be disadvantaged.
80% of the current journals in this Society's library are obtained
by exchange with other societies who publish their own journals.
Should these societies change to using commercial publishers we
could not afford the demand for subscriptions that would, no doubt,
follow. It is, perhaps, significant that we have few UK published
journals in our library.
8. In considering the price of commercially
produced journals some thought might be given to the cost of producing
them. The authors of scientific papers are not paid by the publishers
nor are the referees who review the papers and, with a few exceptions,
the editors are merely paid expenses and an honorarium. Thus the
specialist work is done at no cost to the publisher whose role
is merely to arrange for printing and marketing. The publisher
also insists on the authors and institutions making over the copyright
to the publisher. In these circumstances it is difficult to see
why the cost of these commercially produced journals is so high.
Of course the editors', authors' and referees' time is not free,
it is paid for by their employers; these are the same employers
whose libraries have to buy the journals at inflated prices. The
giving of time freely dates from the days when all scientific
journals were published by societies whose members co-operated
to produce them without payment and with the objective of advancing
knowledge not of making a profit. Although the journals are now
produced to make a profit for the publishers, these practices
have continued and the publishers have taken full advantage of
them.
9. While the commercial market seems buoyant,
it appears that not-for-profit journals may be struggling to survive
unless they are linked to a society. This is probably because,
without the benefit of distribution to members, their print runs
are not large enough to allow the journals to be priced at a level
acceptable to their potential readers. Recently this Society has
had to grant-aid one such journal to ensure its survival.
CONCLUSIONS
10. The scientific community pays too much
for its journals compared to the resources it puts into them.
For the most part, the scientific community only has itself to
blame for this situation by allowing itself to be taken advantage
of by the commercial publishers. Societies such as the British
Ecological Society, the Linnean Society and the Royal Entomological
Society should consider taking their publications back in house,
thus cutting out the middle man and allowing them to reduce prices
while maintaining their profits. They might consider whether they
could benefit from the publishing experience of societies, and
other institutions, in other European countries. University Vice-Chancellors
should consider whether they are getting value for money from
the time their staff give to producing for profit journals. Independent
not for profit publishers should consider whether they might seek
an alliance with a like-minded society before their financial
situation becomes desperate. Publishers should pay for the copyrights
transferred to them. Charities that act as grant giving bodies
should consider making it a condition of their grants that any
papers resulting from their grants were offered, in the first
place, to journals published directly by societies or to other
not for profit journals. Ensuring such a throughput of research
papers would make it easier for these journals to compete with
the commercial publishers.
February 2004
| 
