RE: UK Government Refuses to SupportOpen-Access Approach to Scientific Publishing

["alison.macdonald@britishlibrary.net" <alison.macdonald@britishlibrary.net>]

I thought readers of the list might be interested to see the response
(below) by Lord Sainsbury of Turville (UK Minister for Science and
Innovation) in the Financial Times of 10th November 2004, to the Financial
Times' editorial comment of 9th November (below Sainsbury letter) on the
open access question.

Alison Macdonald
Digital Archiving Consultancy
Twickenham, UK


<<Open access is not only science publishing model

By David Sainsbury Published: November 10 2004 02:00 | Last updated:
November 10 2004 02:00 From Lord Sainsbury of Turville.

Sir, In your editorial on open-access publishing ("Open access", November
9) you seem to misunderstand both the government's position and the nature
of open-access publishing.

As was made very clear in our response to the Commons science committee,
the government is very happy to see users of research in this country
having a choice between traditional "subscriber pays" publishing and
open-access publishing. That is why it is making certain that there is a
level playing-field by encouraging the research councils to support
scientists wanting to take the open-access route.

What the government does not think is right to do is to promote one model,
open-access publishing, in the marketplace. It is not clear that on a
like-for-like basis open-access publishing will have a lower cost base,
and as it will transfer some of the payments from industry users to the
authors, it is likely to lead to higher costs for universities and
research institutes. Also, because Britain produces 5.3 per cent of
articles in the world's science journals while accounting for only 3.5 per
cent of subscriptions, we would also lose out as a country.

The government believes that providing a level playing-field and giving
users a choice is the best way to avoid arbitrarily giving either kind of
publishing an advantage. David Sainsbury, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of
State for Science and Innovation, Department of Trade and Industry, London
SW1H 0ET>>
 
The FT editorial:
<<Open access
Financial Times - Editorial comment
Published: November 9 2004 02:00 | Last updated: November 9 2004 02:00 

Advocates of "open access" scientific publishing wanted Britain to lead an
international move from traditional subscription-based journals to a model
that would make all research findings accessible to anyone with a
computer. Their hopes were dashed yesterday when the government rejected
the recommendations of the Commons science committee that it promote the
new model - also known as "author-pays" - with practical actions such as
help for universities to make all their researchers' papers available free
online.

Although the angry MPs may have gone too far in accusing the Department of
Trade and Industry of kow-towing to the publishing lobby at the expense of
British science, the government should not have taken such a negative
stance. A more measured response would have been to adopt some of the
committee's suggestions for establishing Britain as a test-bed for open
access journals, with publishing and peer review costs met ultimately by
the research funding agencies, while making clear that there would be no
precipitate move away from the existing system.

The main reason for considering a change now is that computer and
communications technology make it possible, for the first time, to
disseminate research results far beyond the traditional purchasers of
scientific journals, such as university libraries. There is a powerful
ideological argument that the public, having funded the research in the
first place, should not have to pay again to see the results.

The scientific journal market has been very lucrative in recent years. The
volume of research is growing and academic success in many countries
depends increasingly on publications in prestigious journals. Their
publishers are making large profits selling paper copies to libraries at
prices that have risen faster than general inflation, while at the same
time tapping a fast-growing new market through charging for internet
access.

The problem facing open access advocates is that, while scientific
publishing may be dominated by companies such as Reed Elsevier, it also
includes many learned societies that depend on revenues from their
journals to support educational and professional activities. A mechanism
will have to be found to protect the latter from the adverse consequences
of any significant move away from subscription-based publishing.

Although the lukewarm attitude of the government will disappoint open
access activists, the publishing industry must recognise the growing
international pressure for fundamental change. The Wellcome Trust is
determined to introduce open access publishing through the �400m a year it
spends on biomedical research and there are powerful voices for reform in
the US and elsewhere in Europe. A fair compromise might be to give
journals six months exclusivity and then guarantee free public access.>>

###