Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Cancer Research UK

Cancer Research UK is leading the world in finding new ways to prevent, control and cure all cancers. We are the largest independent funder dedicated to cancer research in the world. In 2011–12 we spent £332 million on research, supporting the work of more than 4,000 scientists, doctors and nurses. Our research is funded entirely by donations from the public.

Executive Summary

Cancer Research UK supports the goals of open access (OA) as we believe that making the results of research widely and freely available can only benefit the research effort and the economy.

Whilst Cancer Research UK supports the aims of open access we need to balance this with the responsibility to ensure that as much of our income as possible is dedicated to bringing forward the day when all cancers are cured.

We do not think that meeting the costs of open access fits with core charitable objectives, and therefore believe that these costs should not be covered by fundraising charities.

We would therefore support the cost of author processing charges (APCs) being covered by the existing funding mechanisms that charitable awards in universities already attract.

Whilst Cancer Research UK recognises the benefits that an OA publishing model could deliver, we have some concerns over the management of and responsibility for costs arising from the shift to OA publishing. We also have some questions about the likelihood and speed of transition in the rest of the world.

We recognise that making publications available immediately through the payment of APCs is the route that will deliver the greatest benefit.

We understand that by adopting a position of leadership in this area, the UK is likely to incur increased costs during the transition period towards OA. We would welcome additional information on how BIS and Research Councils UK (RC-UK) are proposing to monitor and limit the increased costs during this time.

We would also be interested to learn how BIS and RC-UK intend to ensure that in the longer term the rates for APCs are sustainable.

Response to Inquiry

Cancer Research UK supports open access. As thoroughly explored in the Finch report, we understand that making the results of research widely and freely available will support innovation and, ultimately, will enhance the economy1

As part of our support for OA, we have a policy that requires a full text version of all papers resulting from our research to be available in Europe PubMed Central (E-PMC) within six months of publication.

We also own the British Journal of Cancer and we have ensured that the journal offers both gold and green routes to open access.

Open access publishing is clearly an important part of the future for scholarly communication and in coming years we wish to see it become the norm in biomedical science. Whilst we support this movement, we have some concerns about the transition, in particular with respect to the associated costs.

1. Green Versus Gold Open Access Models

At present Cancer Research UK encourages its researchers to publish through the green route where possible, with an embargo of up to six months. Whilst we recognise the additional benefits that gold OA might bring, we recommend green largely to limit the additional costs to the charity. We accept this compromise as we lack evidence to demonstrate that the benefit of immediate versus embargoed open access is worth the potential additional cost.

2. Concerns about Cost

We are concerned about the potential costs associated with the gold open access model on several fronts.

a. APCs would be new and considerable cost to the Charity, which will not be off-set by reduction in subscriptions

The Finch Report2 indicated that author processing charges (APCs) should now be considered part of the direct costs of research and, as such, should be borne by research funders (it should be noted that fundraising charities were not represented on the Finch Committee).

Cancer Research UK researchers publish around 2,000 papers every year. Using the same cost assumptions as the Finch Report, we estimate that if we assume paying for APCs this would increase costs to the charity by £2.6 million a year. For government funding it is predicted that the increase in APCs would be offset by a decrease in the cost of subscriptions, but for charities this is a completely new and somewhat unexpected cost.

b. Should fundraising charities cover the cost of APCs?

Whilst Cancer Research UK supports the aims of open access we need to balance this with the responsibility to ensure that as much of our income as possible is dedicated to bringing forward the day when all cancers are cured. We do not think that meeting the costs of open access fits with core charitable objectives, and therefore believe that these costs should not be covered by fundraising charities.

Charitable funding in the university sector already attracts QR funding (or the equivalent provisions in devolved nations). In the 2008 RAE, all universities that submitted in the cancer studies unit of assessment submitted research groups funded by charities. UK based charities accounted for over 60% of the further funding reported—a total of almost £600 million. Further funding was one of the considerations used to calculate how much QR funding each university received.

Given that charitable funding already attracts QR, and given that charities will not benefit from any decrease in the cost of subscriptions, we would support a move towards the cost of APCs being covered by the existing funding mechanisms that charitable awards in universities already attract.

c. Increased costs during the transition period

The UK government has taken a global lead on OA and as a result we are at the forefront of a transition from the current predominantly subscription based publishing model to a model where available revenue will come mainly from APCs. Whilst in the long run the OA model may decrease the overall costs of scholarly publishing, there will undoubtedly be an increase in costs during the transition period as most publishers will receive both subscriptions and APCs.

We would welcome more information on how Research Councils UK intends to monitor how the block grants are being used and how they intend to negotiate lower subscriptions from publishers to help minimise the transition costs.

d. Achieving a sustainable rate for APCs

The costs of academic publishing are not transparent and researchers are generally price insensitive when considering where to publish—they will publish in the journal they perceive to be held in highest esteem by their colleagues and funders regardless of cost. In a fully open access publishing model, costs will be transparent and it is assumed that researchers will consider cost when publishing. If researchers remain price insensitive there is a risk that the average APCs will be too high to be sustainable and overall costs in the system will increase.

We would welcome more information on what approaches BIS and RC-UK are planning to adopt to help ensure that price becomes a factor when academics are deciding where to publish.

3. The International Context

The UK has taken a substantial lead on promoting and facilitating open access and there are some signs that other countries are following suit. However, there remains a risk that the UK will pay APCs to make the results of UK research available openly and will need to continue to pay subscriptions to get timely access to research results from the rest of the world.

In biomedical sciences due to the volume and quality of their output, the policy at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) will be a major factor in determining if and when there is an overall move towards an open access publishing model. NIH has an open access policy which they now enforce through sanctions. However, they have a twelve month embargo period and have expressed no preference for gold.

We would welcome additional information on how BIS and Research Councils UK are working towards encouraging the switch to gold OA in the rest of the world.

4. Rights of Use and Reuse

OA Research will only deliver maximum benefit if the results are not only available to read, but also available to use and reuse. Currently, the most predominant publishing licences restrict the reuse of publications. For example, Europe PubMed Central currently has 1.7 million articles available as full text open access, however only 0.5 million of these articles have the appropriate licences that allow them to be text mined. The remaining 1.2 million articles cannot be mined due to the licensing restrictions enforced by various publishers.

Research Councils UK and the Wellcome Trust have mandated the CC-BY licence, where publications can be used and re-used freely, even for commercial purposes. Cancer Research UK does not currently require publications resulting from our funding to be published under CC-BY. Whilst we recognise that this is a key part in deriving economic and other benefits from OA, we feel that there should be more consultation with the research community on this matter and that currently there is not enough understanding of the issue to enable a reasonable debate.

14 February 2013