Business, Innovation and Skills CommitteeWritten evidence submitted by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Executive Summary
This document represents the formal submission to the Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS Committee’s inquiry on Open Access (OA) from Emerald Group Publishing Limited (Emerald), a UK-based publisher of books and journals in the business, management, social science and engineering disciplines. The document represents the company’s view on the Government’s OA policy, and its implementation through Research Councils UK (RCUK).
Introduction
Emerald Group Publishing Limited was founded in Bradford in 1967 and is a leading academic publisher in the fields of business and management, social sciences and engineering. It operates globally, and currently publishes 300 journals and 165 books annually.
It is making this submission as a key stakeholder in UK higher education—it draws more authors from the UK than any other country, and counts almost all UK universities among its customers. As such, it has an understanding and an obligation to ensure the needs and rights of its author community are fully supported during any inquiry.
Emerald’s Open Access Status
Emerald has had a very open policy towards Open Access (OA) over many years. Currently it is a “RoMEO Green” publisher, which allows all authors to deposit the pre- or post-print version of their article (except the Emerald-published pdf) on their institutional repository or personal website at any time, with the appropriate attribution.
It also works with major associations in the disciplines it covers to allow further access to content, such as IFLA and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as making some journal content freely available for newly launched journals.
Issues for BIS Committee Discussion
Finch Report Recommendations
While supportive overall of the Finch Group report, Emerald has three main concerns over the speed of adoption of the report by RCUL and rush towards implementation, the lack of guidance on certain key issues impacting on researchers and publishers, and the inability to answer these concerns at this very late stage in the process. As such, Emerald welcomes this opportunity to submit these concerns to the BIS Committee inquiry
Copyright and Permissions
One of the key issues to cause concern in the research community is the preference for a CC BY licence for mandated content. Emerald believes that the CC BY licence is not appropriate for scholarly publishing as Emerald believes this will fail to protect authors’ moral rights and their ability to control where their work appears, such as in misleading commercial context. This could damage the delicate balance that has sustained peer review of journal articles, which is the cornerstone of academic communication. If a Creative commons licence must be mandated, a better option would be CC BY-NC.
Cost of OA Implementation
The ability to pay article processing fees (APCs), for business, management and social science authors in particular, is limited. It seems that additional funding will not be immediately made available to authors in these disciplines even if they have direct funding for research and a publishing mandate in April and beyond, and there may be limitations on authors’ ability to pay from their own pockets. Furthermore, the propensity to pay APCs is hampered by unrealistic expectations among authors, as Emerald’s own research shows a preference to pay APCs at price points below $50.
Gold OA in the UK and Internationally
The lack of clarity in what will happen in the UK makes any pronouncement on this hazardous at best, so clarification of the issues highlighted in this report would be beneficial. In terms of the international context, it is important that the needs of researchers in business, management, economics and other social sciences are considered specifically, as they have a very different profile and set of dynamics to those in scientific research areas.
Recommendations for the BIS Committee
Emerald’s recommendations to the BIS Committee are fourfold:
1. Delay implementation. Emerald suggests that the implementation of the Finch Group report by RCUK is delayed until 2014
2. Provide clear guidance around funding of APCs. Emerald recommends that as a minimum requirement, all outstanding issues are answered with the maximum possible speed
3. Recognise major differences in publishing across subject areas. Research is undertaken to further understand these differences between subject areas, and any implementation by the RCUK fully takes into account these differences
4. Choose a much more robust licence. A stronger licence such as CC BY-NC would enable publishers to protect authors’ IP and their works from any misrepresentations or intellectual theft.
Submission to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee for its Inquiry into the Government’s Open Access policy
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Emerald Group Publishing Limited (‘Emerald’) was established in 1967 by business and management academics at the Bradford School of Management in West Yorkshire and since then has become the world’s leading scholarly publisher of journals and books in business and management with a strong and growing presence in disciplines including LIS, social sciences and engineering.
1.2 Emerald is based in Bingley, West Yorkshire, and currently employs over 300 people in Bingley and overseas. As such, it is a significant local employer in the local area, and is based just five miles from where it originated, and Emerald is owned by Dr Keith Howard who is one of the original founders of the company.
1.3 As a publisher, Emerald chooses to facilitate the global production and dissemination of research that focuses on issues of social importance. Our scope of publishing covers the collection and dissemination of research that is relevant to the fields of management, library and information science, engineering and the social sciences. Emerald’s strategy for achieving our long-term sustainable vision involves six key initiatives:
(1) Support scholarly research
(2) Make research accessible
(3) Use technology responsibly
(4) Sustain and protect our environment
(5) Support local and regional communities
(6) Observe high ethical standards in business and employee relationships.
1.4 Emerald currently publishes 300 journals and 165 new books every year, the majority of which are research-oriented and peer reviewed. Emerald has around two-thirds of its content focused on the business, management and economics fields, and as such is one of the world’s leading publishers in these areas. It also covers (BME) other areas in some depth, including engineering, health and social care, education and other social sciences.
1.5 Emerald also has one of the world’s highest quality collections of Library and Information Science (LIS) journals, and owns library and information management association ASLIB. By publishing high quality journals by librarians for librarians, as well as running training events and conferences for this community, Emerald has developed strong links with librarians and understands their needs extremely well—this is evidenced by the strategic partnerships it has with them through international organisations such as the International Federation of Library Association and Institutions (IFLA).
1.6 Emerald works in close collaboration with a number of academic and corporate organizations and associations worldwide—among these are the Association to Advance Collegiate Schools of Business (AACSB), the Academy of Management, the International Federation of Library Associations (IFLA), the American Library Association (ALA), the European Foundation for Management Development (EFMD), CEEMAN (Central and East European Management Development Association), and many more.
2.0 Open Access Status
2.1 Emerald has a strong record in protecting the copyright and intellectual property of its authors, which numbered over 19,000 in 2012, publishing 8,601 articles. It has long held a “RoMEO Green”status for its journal articles (see 2.2 and 2.3 below), which represents its generous approach to author access. Emerald also has a liberal authors’ charter, which allows authors to reuse their own works extensively. Emerald has consistently been given high percentages of full copyright assignment from its authors; this has enabled us to disseminate their work as widely as possible through our own channels and with third parties, as well as providing a permissions service on their behalf. We clearly explain these benefits to our authors—for example in 2012, 99.4% of articles published had full copyright assigned to Emerald.
2.2 Emerald has a number of OA initiatives that it has developed in conjunction with its stakeholders that it has developed and run with some success, balancing the needs of the communities it serves with those of its customers:
Emerald has an agreement with strategic partner IFLA such that a number of papers from its prestigious conference are re-worked as articles for review and publication in Emerald journals, and in return Emerald allows those articles to be made openly accessible after just nine months.
Emerald also has an agreement with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation that research papers supported by the Foundation are made openly accessible, with a similar nine month embargo period to the IFLA agreement.
Every journals offers two free articles from the previous twelve months on its homepage, which can represent up to 20% of annual content.
Emerald has also made some journal content freely available for newly launched journals to support the development of emerging research disciplines.
For over a decade, Emerald has adopted the Sherpa “RoMEO Green” status, which enables all its authors to place the pre- or post-print version of their articles (excluding the Publisher PDF-branded version) on personal websites or in their institutional repositories. Importantly, it places no embargo on the ability of authors to do so, so they can promote or disseminate their own work as soon as it is published, with the correct attribution to the published version.
2.3 Emerald’s Green RoMEO status was originally adopted through recognition that its authors would want to promote their research and to help support institutional repositories. In particular, it was informed through its close relationship with librarians, and the status reflects the symbiotic relationship Emerald has with them and other author groups. Emerald recognises the need to share information beyond its direct customers, but without the immense value its Editors, boards, journals, books and peer review networks provide in acknowledging the best research in all the disciplines it covers, this delicate Eco-system would collapse.
2.4 Sections 3.0 to 6.0 below refer broadly to the four issues highlighted for discussion by the BIS Committee
3.0 Finch Report Recommendations
3.1 With regard to the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of the Finch Group Report (“Accessibility, sustainability, excellence: how to expand access to research publications”), and its preference for the “gold” over the “green” open access model, Emerald cautiously welcomed the findings in 2012. However the RCUK’s adoption of it seemed too rapid for a full understanding of all the consequences of the recommendations made, and this has been borne out in recent months with a number of key stakeholders in academic publishing, such as Editors and learned societies, voicing great concern at the impact and unintended consequences of RCUK’s implementation of the Finch Group’s report.
3.2 Furthermore, Emerald has been disappointed by the lack of clear guidance and simple information ahead of the April 2013 deadline for granting OA status to publicly funded research. As this submission is being finalised in early February, there are still questions that remain unresolved, which has meant that planning for the changes by the organisation has been almost impossible. This in turn has lead to dangerous instability and exposure in the marketplace. These questions include:
What support will be available to authors to cover Article Processing Charges (APCs)?
What level will APCs be set at?
What flexibility has been built into the RCUK’s approach to take into consideration the differences in subject disciplines, particularly in the social science and humanities areas?
Will there be a level set? Will it be determined by discipline?
Will non-UK-based co-authors be included in the mandates?
When publishing international research with varying funder mandates, which mandate takes precedence?
What penalties will be imposed on authors who do not make mandated research OA? What penalties would publishers face?
4.0 Copyright and Permissions
4.1 To answer the questions the BIS Committee has on rights of use and reuse in relation to open access research publications (including the implications of Creative Commons “CC BY” licences), this is a complex and often grey area for all publishers, and again there has been little guidance from RCUK on the implications of its new requirement.
4.2 It was stated above (para 2.3) that Emerald has for over a decade allowed its authors to deposit their articles in repositories and elsewhere without embargo. The adoption of “RoMEO Green” status has meant that many authors have shared their work outside of academia with interested third parties. Given the areas Emerald publishes in, this will have benefited both UK organisations and many further afield as well.
4.3 The nature of this policy, however, depends on a delicate balance between openly accessible content and the ability of Editors and publishers to define, improve and promote the very best research. Again, there is uncertainty around some of the details of RCUK’s implementation of the Finch Report, specifically around embargoes and how workable these will be. While Emerald does not currently operate an embargo, it readily understands the protests by History journal editors recently as to the differences their subject area has in the ‘churn’ of research, and the need to impose a longer embargo period of 36 months.
4.4 The choice of licences is one much debated in both the OA community and wider publishing and licencing communities. As a publisher, we believe one of the cornerstones of our policy should be the protection of the intellectual property (IP) rights of our authors. We ensure this by managing the peer review process responsibly, by advocating the highest standards of publication ethics, as evidenced by our membership of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). We also respect the intellectual rights of other rightsholders and ensure that any third party material within our content has permission cleared. We are adhere to the STM permissions guidelines to enable the gratis flow of content between academics and publishers.
4.5 Given this position, it is difficult for Emerald to endorse the decision by RCUK to impose the CC BY licence. It is our opinion—one that is shared by many across all stakeholder communities—that this licence is open to abuse and misinterpretation. We believe that it will fail the needs of researchers to protect their moral rights. Whilst the CC BY licence requires attribution, it is only as a contractual obligation and does not carry the same weight as the statutory assertion of paternity rights in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, design and patents act 1988. Emerald (along with other publishers and learned societies) is concerned that the CC BY licence will allow for third parties to commercialise the research and use it in misleading contexts to further their own aims.
4.6 Under the CC BY licence, there will be a loss of secondary revenue for publishers. Academics look to publishers to constantly improve and innovate with new products, services and platforms––without this revenue, UK publishers may be unable to keep up with international innovation.
5.0 Cost of OA Implementation
5.1 In relation to the likely costs of article processing charges (APCs) and the implications for research funding and for the taxpayer, as Emerald publishes predominantly business, management and social science areas, our authors are faced with a limited ability to pay any APCs for articles to be published in an OA environment, and limited or no funding to support them.
5.2 This position has been made more untenable by the confusion around what funding will be made available to which researchers to support any APCs they have to pay.
5.3 Emerald has been constantly reviewing its options with regard to OA for many months and years, and has undertaken research with its stakeholders in order to understand their needs regarding OA, and how might it best serve them. The research* it has completed has shown the following:
There is a very high recognition rate of Open Access, with 88% of Emerald authors aware of it.
The most recognised OA model was “Gold” with over half of respondents familiar with the term.
Only 38% were aware of “Green” OA models
While 40% of authors were “very likely” or “likely” to use either Green or Gold OA options, 42% were “not very likely” or “not at all likely” to use Gold OA, and 41% to use Green OA
The propensity to pay OA article processing fees (without additional funding for APCs) lags greatly behind the charges being levied—the survey showed the most likely price authors would pay to enable their articles to be openly accessible was between $15 and $50. Major publishers currently charge a wide range of fees that range between $99 (currently on offer from Sage Open) to $3,250 (Taylor & Francis)
[*Survey completed in June 2012 with 888 respondents]
6.0 Gold OA in the UK and Internationally
6.1 For many stakeholders in the research process, the level of “gold” open access uptake in the rest of the world versus the UK, and the ability of UK higher education institutions to remain competitive, is a key issue.
6.2 As noted above, Emerald has been disappointed by the lack of any clear guidance on many issues around the implementation of the Finch Group report by RCUK, however the most acute of these has been the lack of clarity around APCs. Like many publishers, Emerald is keen to develop new business models in order to adapt its existing systems and programmes to the new RCUK directive, however this has been made virtually impossible by the absence of any real information around how APCs will be funded, distributed to authors and in turn paid to publishers to enable articles to be published in an OA environment.
6.3 Specifically, Emerald would like to understand how the following will work:
The latest information suggests only 45% of APCs will be funded in the first year (2013–2014)—why not all APCs?
Which authors will receive this funding initially? Will it be by subject area? Will these subject areas be, as has been mooted, be the science, technology and medical (STM) disciplines?
Funding of APCs will apparently increase to 75% after a period of time—which authors will miss out on funding and why?
What is the process for authors to apply for additional funding for APCs? How long will this process take? Will it be done directly by authors or through their universities or research institutions?
Will there be a minimum or maximum level of APCs? Will publishers be able to levy any fee? Will there be any guidance on acceptable fee structures?
Will the levying of APCs differ by discipline? Will the type of peer review undertaken be taken into account in the setting of APC levels?
6.4 It is difficult for any organisation to have so much uncertainty just a few months ahead of such major changes to the structure of the market it operates in. Furthermore, Emerald is aware that the EU has indicated it wishes to follow the UK in its moves towards OA, and the Australian Research Council (ARC) has recently indicated a similar proposal for 2014. Both the EU and Australia, however, have few grants made in business, management and social sciences, and as with the UK, there is little or no support for authors who will have mandates to publish their research as OA content, but do not have the financial means to pay for what is a costly process.
7.0 Recommendations for the BIS Committee
7.1 Touching on some of the concerns that have been raised, and perhaps some new ones, the following points represent Emerald’s communication to BIS and its recommendations as to how it should at for the overall benefit of all parties involved.
7.2 Delay implementation. The speed of adoption has thrown many parties in academia, learned societies and publishing into confusion, especially given the lack of guidance and clarity around the new regulations. As a minimum consideration, we would recommend that the implementation of the Finch Report by RCUK is delayed until 2014 to ensure these problems are navigated successfully.
7.3 Provide clear guidance around funding of APCs. As indicated in the text above (para 2.5), there are still a number of questions outstanding around APCs. Any organisation has to be able to plan at least a few months ahead for major changes to market conditions, and it is both unfair and unjust that these questions remain to be answered just a few weeks before implementation. Emerald therefore recommends that as a minimum requirement, all these questions are answered with the maximum possible speed, or as suggested above (para 3.5.3.1) implementation is delayed.
7.4 Recognise major differences in publishing across subject areas. As evidenced by the recent research on OA with Emerald’s authors (para 2.6), while there is recognition of OA as an issue, there is a very mixed view in terms of which models are available (ie Green or Gold), which models would suit them and how much they could pay should they choose the Gold route. Emerald believes there is a huge knowledge gap among academics, particularly in fields such as Business and Management where the dynamics around funding of business schools (with more diverse revenue streams and very little public funding) differ markedly to the funding of scientific departments in universities. We therefore recommend that research is undertaken to further understand these differences between subject areas, and any implementation by the RCUK fully takes into account these differences.
7.5 Choose a much more robust licence. The ability of the CC-BY licence to protect UK researchers and their IP is weakened by the use of the CC-BY licence. A licence to protect against the commercialisation of the content (without the author’s consent) such as CC BY-NC would enable publishers to protect the author’s work more effectively.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 Emerald is grateful for the opportunity to contribute its comments on OA in the UK to the BIS Committee, and would be more than happy to take any further part in the inquiry should the committee wish to include it in its further investigations.
8.2 In summary, Emerald believes that due to the lack of information and guidance, as well as the speed of adoption of the Finch Report by RCUK, its implementation should be delayed until at least 2014. More specifically, clarity on the processes around APCs and licensing is of critical importance, in addition to the commissioning of research to further understand the differences between subject disciplines, especially those unique factors in the business, management and economic areas. Should these concerns be fully alleviated, the potential impact on the delicate balance between research and publishing that has enabled the UK to thrive on the global stage can be maintained, for the greater benefit of the UK Higher Education sector and the UK’s interests as a whole.
1 February 2013