APPENDIX 39
Memorandum from the British Ecological
Society
1. The British Ecological Society is a learned
society which aims to promote the science of ecology worldwide.
It has 4,000 members. The Society is an independent body that
receives no outside funding. The BES publishes four peer-reviewed,
scientific journals in ecology. These journals all rank in the
top 30 of the standard citation rankings but are relatively inexpensive.
Its core income comes from publishing (77%), membership (10%)
and investments (6%). This income is used to support the ecological
community, both in the UK and overseas, in a wide variety of ways
including:
— organising and subsidising international
conferences;
— supporting the teaching of ecology
in schools;
— promoting more effective use of ecological
research in policy development the management of natural resources;
— increasing two-way dialogue between
the public and academic ecologists; and
— providing an extensive range of grants
to undertake ecological research, attend conferences, organise
meetings and support ecologists in developing countries.
2. Many (but not all) commercial publishers
are setting excessive prices for their journals; the large returns
on capital employed that they can attain (up to 30%) represent
a tax on science. Bundling of journals is superficially attractive
to libraries and to their users, but in practice it involves a
large subsidy by publicly-funded science to unsuccessful and marginal
commercial journals from the overpricing of journals with a stronger
scientific reputation. In that manner, it represents a distortion
of the market.
3. The pressure to move to open-access publication
is therefore a welcome restraint on the activities of the less
scrupulous publishers. However, it also poses a serious threat
to the activities of many learned societies that receive income
from more responsible publishing practices. At present it is difficult
to anticipate the likely market rate for author fees in an open
access model but it seems very probable that overall income to
learned societies will be significantly reduced if this publishing
model is adopted universally. Societies in some fields have succeeded
in diversifying their income sources; however, this is usually
only possible where there is an active wealth-creating industry
that is dependent on the science in question, notably in pharmaceuticals.
Income from advertising and sponsorship can effectively replace
publishing income in such cases. However, in disciplines such
as ecology, alternative income streams are harder to identify.
4. In addition to reducing income from publishing,
open access is likely to reduce income from membership for learned
societies. The BES, in common with most learned societies, offers
its members subscriptions to its journals at a nominal fee (£20
per journal per annum). This is a significant benefit and is one
of the main reasons why members join. Open access would make this
benefit to members redundant, resulting in fewer members and a
further erosion of income. Please see the written evidence to
the Committee from the Association of Learned and Professional
Society Publishers and from the Institute of Biology for more
comments on the impact of open access on learned societies.
5. The BES is actively exploring the possibility
of moving one or more of its journals to an open-access basis,
but it has serious concerns about the ability to offer access
to scientists whose research is effectively unfunded. Quite apart
from the need to provide access to authors from developing countries
who cannot pay publication fees, there is an issue about the publication
of research conducted without substantial external support. Although
ecology as a discipline is increasingly embracing new (and expensive)
technologies, which therefore require the substantial grant funding
that enables open-access publication, it is still possible to
make major advances in the science from data gathered by volunteers
or students, especially in field work. Such projects can be undertaken,
for example, in tropical regions where many key ecological questions
need to be tackled. The volume of papers likely to be received
by an ecological journal from authors without the funds to pay
for publication is therefore likely to be greater than in other,
more lab-based disciplines.
6. The British Ecological Society therefore
supports the principle of open-access publishing, but is concerned
that the motivation behind it has come from the excessive prices
charged by a small number of commercial publishers, and that a
consequence of its widespread adoption may well be a reduction
of the beneficial influence that learned societies can play in
science.
February 2004
|
