Reed Elsevier CEO comments

["Joseph J. Esposito" <espositoj@worldnet.att.net>]

An article on journals publishing from the Reed Elsevier CEO.

Joe Esposito
****

>Why the sci-mag barons are right

In March The Observer's Simon Caulkin argued that scientific publishers
had long used their stranglehold on the market to push up prices at the
expense of underfunded academics. This, he suggested, was about to be
changed by the welcome arrival of 'open access' publishing. Here, Crispin
Davis, chief executive of leading publisher Reed Elsevier defends the
industry

Sunday April 18, 2004
The Observer

Vigorous debate is a sign that scientific research is working well; bold
ideas that challenge existing approaches - and their refinement through
experiments - are drivers of scientific progress.

The current discussion about innovation in scientific publishing has
engaged not only science and medical researchers, but also librarians,
funding agencies and publishers. Let's look at three key questions at the
heart of this debate. First, what value do established science publishers
deliver to research communities in the internet age? Second, how well does
the structure of the science publishing industry serve its communities?
Third, could the new 'author pays to publish', or 'open access', model
improve science publishing?

The system has evolved over hundreds of years to meet the needs of
scientific researchers. Even before the internet, it did this extremely
well, linking scientists in specialised sub-fields through a worldwide
publishing system. Some 2,000 scientific, technical and medical (STM)
publishers annually produce and deliver 1.2 million peer-reviewed
articles, the quality of which has been vetted by experts in their fields.
The existing system is stable and preserves today's research for
tomorrow's researchers.

The internet's power allows established publishers to serve researchers
even better. Combining the quality control of peer review with the
functionality of electronic technology, publishers now deliver massive
improvements to researchers and practitioners. Round the clock, with a
mouse click, researchers can retrieve an article written by a scientist
thousands of miles away, and perhaps decades ago.

Cross-Ref, an industry-wide initiative, enables users to navigate between
electronic articles from numerous publishers. Scientists can read articles
on the screen or print them at home, link to other articles cited, export
text to citation management software and receive alerts about new journal
issues.

This transformation has been achieved by publishers who have invested for
years to develop web-based article submission and distribution platforms,
common linking protocols, and digital archives. Elsevier alone has
invested more than £200 million in such innovations, and recently made 180
years' worth of articles from The Lancet available on a single database.

The use of scientific information is spreading as technology allows more
researchers to access more information more frequently. Since 1999, the
number of articles downloaded via Elsevier's electronic portal
ScienceDirect has doubled each year, reaching 175 million downloaded
articles in 2003 as its worldwide usership reached 5 million.

A policy of universal access to scientific material for the general public
allows people to use ScienceDirect on site at university libraries. Any UK
citizen can obtain a copy of an Elsevier article through the inter-library
loan network or the British Library.

Turning now to the structure of science publishing, it is a fact that the
industry has always been competitive and has become even more so as new
technology enables anyone to become a publisher. The top six STM
publishers account for just 37 per cent of all STM articles, and Elsevier
accounts for around 18 per cent. The industry's structure allows authors
freedom to submit articles to their chosen journals and lets libraries
select which titles to buy.

In recent years, libraries have expressed concerns about the rising cost
of journals, in part because university funding cuts have placed pressure
on their budgets. In 2003, the top 100 US university libraries received 25
per cent less of their universities' budgets than in 1998. The situation
is similar in the UK and elsewhere. At the same time, the cost of journal
publishing increases each year, driven by the volume of research articles;
the cost of investment in technology; higher archiving and usage costs;
and inflation.

Increasingly, publishers are taking action to address libraries' budgetary
concerns. Since 1999, the list prices of Elsevier's journals have risen by
around 6 per cent per year, which is well below the industry average. Over
this period the volume of articles grew annually by 3-5 per cent,
inflation increased by 1-2 per cent each year, and the number of articles
downloaded doubled annually. Since 2001, the price of retrieving an
Elsevier article in the UK has fallen 63 per cent from £4.70 to £1.70 and
is expected to fall below £1 within two years.

The final discussion point concerns the new open access, or 'author pays',
publishing model and it is important to clarify what this means. Despite
its name, open access is likely to reduce access to STM research; most
open access journals are only available online, whereas current publishing
models offer both online and print. While electronic technology is
delivering great benefits, journals that are only available online are
actually less accessible, particularly in countries with poor
technological infrastructure. By contrast, established publishers offer
near universal access that is free to individual researchers,
practitioners and the public, through a combination of print and
electronic journals distributed online and via a library network.

The author-pays model transfers publishing costs from users to authors.
Because this system charges authors per article published, countries with
prolific authors, like the UK, would pay far more. Commercial corporations
in industries like aerospace and pharmaceuticals, which are big consumers
of research journals but publish very little, would pay considerably less.
Currently, author-pays journals cover less than half their costs through
article fees. Foundation grants and private investors provide the balance
but continuity of the scientific record may be broken when that subsidy
ends.

There is a conflict of interest in a system where authors pay to publish.
Potentially, financial pressure to accept more articles could lead to a
lower quality of published research. The open access model also favours
those who can afford to publish, and could disenfranchise authors from
poorer nations or less-endowed institutions that have much to contribute,
but insufficient funding.

In the centuries-old STM publishing industry, open access is a new
movement. Like most scientific experiments, its benefits are being tested.
Established publishers like Elsevier will observe and, as always, be ready
to adapt and invest accordingly. Meanwhile, we will continue investing in
the kinds of innovations that have so dramatically increased the
productivity of researchers and that will continue to deliver better value
for money for the libraries that serve them.

***