A case for open-source scientific publishing

Kate McDaniel

LIS 6010 Blog Assignment

“We’ve arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology.  We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology.  This is a prescription for disaster… “  Carl Sagan A Demon Haunted World

            The concept of intellectual freedom refers to the privilege which allows the everyday person access to the information they need in pursuit of their own study and enlightenment. This is a need that libraries have traditionally filled by acquiring reading materials and resources for patron use.  But, what happens when the cost of purchasing the needed materials can shut the library completely down?  This is what has been happening in academic libraries -- especially where the cost of purchasing journal subscriptions can cripple the library’s budget. The investment in research journals is one way the library addresses the mission of providing access to resources, but the rising cost of these subscriptions is hindering their ability to do that.

The purchasing of academic journals can consume up to 65% of an academic library’s budget, and these costs are being passed along to the students.  This extortion has come under fire not just by noted scientists (Wolfgang, 2012) and universities (Sample, April 2012), but also by whole governments (Sample, July 2012).  The truly inappropriate aspect of this situation is the fact that the peer review and often the editing process is done for free.  The publisher does not pay for this in most cases, nor do they pay the researcher for his or her work.  The publisher makes an enormous profit off of the submission without really contributing much to it except allowing the researcher to be published in a “prestigious” journal.

            The peer review process as well as most of the editing is all done for free by volunteer researchers and scientists.  The same people that submit the articles to be published, in fact, do almost all of the work, and their colleagues are doing the editing and review.  How publishers Elsevier, Springer and Wiley have gotten away with this for so long is truly a mystery.  It has also been a major inhibiting factor in the growth of collections and services in academic libraries when so much of the budget goes to journal subscriptions. 

The students in these universities have to absorb the cost of paying unusually high prices for the journals that the university needs to remain competitive and in some cases, accredited.  The library budgets are cut down to the bone, and almost all other purchasing ceases in order to accommodate the soaring cost of academic journal subscriptions.

            The lack of transparency is the scariest aspect of the publishing business.  Almost no data can be found on how much actual profit is made by companies that own these journals.  Estimates into profit margins are just that, estimates.  According to sources below, publishing companies are not very forthcoming about margins, and libraries must sign non-disclosure agreements regarding what they actually have to pay (Van Noordan, 2013).  “Elsevier's reported margins are 37%, but financial analysts estimate them at 40–50% for the STM publishing division before tax” (Van Noordan, 2013).  Another topic of concern is the fact that the money made from publishing goes to shareholders, not back into research or education. 

Where does this leave the academic library, the scientist, and the student?  Unfortunately, there has been very little large-scale change since the initial boycott in 2012.  Elsevier just makes too much money to be daunted by a few geeks staging a boycott.  However, it may be that the stand taken by the British government to have all British academic research free and available by 2014 will make them sit up and take notice.  If several countries stood together to take this step, it could change the landscape of scientific research.  With open source research publishing such as PLoS, PeerJ, and BioMed Central becoming much more reliable, it is possible to break the stranglehold, at least a little bit.  Even ceasing the practice of bundling would be a great help to many.  Allowing institutions to purchase just the journals they needed for accreditation and research would free up funds for libraries.

            Let’s perform a thought experiment: What would happen in libraries if extortion prices of academic research suddenly fell away and freed 65% of the libraries’ budget?  Services could increase, technology purchases could increase, collaborative spaces could be developed, tuition could go down instead of up.  Imagine the possibilities with potentially millions of dollars put back into instruction and services. 

In a world dominated by the sciences, our understanding of the world around us is more essential than it has ever been.  Whether the discussion surrounds the climate crisis, responsible energy or wildlife sustainability scientific literacy must no longer be the property of a privileged few.  When problems arise, and the people need understanding, the knowledge has to be there- free and accessible- without shutting down the libraries that provide them.

           

Sources:

Wolfgang, B. (2012, February 29). Scientists protest cost of research journals. Washington Times. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/feb/29/scientists-protest-cost-of-research-journals/?page=all

Journal pricing. (n.d.). Elsevier Home. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.elsevier.com/journal-pricing

Van Noorden, R.  (2013, March 27). Open access: The true cost of science publishing.Nature.com. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676

Corbyn, Z. (2013, January 22). Price doesn't always buy prestige in open access.Nature.com. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.nature.com/news/price-doesn-t-always-buy-prestige-in-open-access-1.12259

Sample, Ian. (2012, April 24). Harvard University says it can't afford journal publishers' prices. . Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices

Publications. (n.d.). PLOS. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.plos.org/publications/

Swoger, B. (2012, September 26). Why are journals so expensive? | Information Culture, Scientific American Blog Network. Scientific American Global RSS. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/information-culture/2012/09/26/why-are-journals-so-expensive/

Nguyen, T. (n.d.).  Freedom to Research: Keeping Scientific Data Open, Accessible, and  Interoperable. . Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://sciencecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/freedom-to-research.pdf.

Sample, I. (2012, July 16). Free access to British scientific research within two years. The Guardian. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jul/15/free-access-british-scientific-research

Open Access to e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics. (n.d.). e-Print archive. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://arxiv.org/

An alternative archive of 8196 e-prints in Science and Mathematics serving the whole scientific community. (n.d.). viXra.org open e-Print archive. Retrieved July 9, 2014, from http://vixra.org/

The Cost of Knowledge. (n.d.). . Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://gowers.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/elsevierstatementfinal.pdf