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
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
