RE: Berkeley faculty statement on scholarly publishing

["Peter Banks" <pbanks@diabetes.org>]

"Seen in that context, the cost of scientific publishing, even with the
existing inefficiencies, is relatively affordable, in that it amounts only
to a few percent of the overall cost of what the funders spend doing the
scientific research in the first place."

To the naive--that is, most journalists and members of Congress--such
statements seem highly plausable. A few percent? Chump change in the
research enterprise!

Except it isn't chump change, it's a diversion of research funding and a
net loss for science. Anyone who thinks that the "few percent" will be
added to, rather than taken from, Federal research funding hasn't looked
at the federal budget lately. From now into the forseeable future,
prospects for increased support for scientific research are bleak.

Here are the figures for NIH:

  FY 2004 Actual  $28,036 M
  FY 2005 Appropriation  $28,594 M   (1.9%)
  FY 2006 Program Level  $28,845 M  (0.7%)
  Total Number of RPGs   38,746 (402 under FY 2005)

For every 1% of RPG funding diverted to Open Access, there is a loss of
about $15.5 M in RPG funding.

Conducting less research to support open access might make sense were
there strong evidence to support the contention that OA will "dramatically
increase the effectiveness of scientific communication, and therefore will
help the progress of science." So far, however, that proposition rests on
faith, not evidence. Effective communication does not consist in shoveling
out reams and reams of manuscripts; it consists in devilvering information
in a way and at a time that empowers crtical decision making, whether in
patient care or research. Just as we now insist upon evidence-based
medicine, we need to insist on evidence based informatics. A major public
policy initative like OA needs more evidence behind it that has so far
been presented.

Peter Banks
Publisher
American Diabetes Association
1701 North Beauregard Street
Alexandria, VA 22311
703/299-2033
FAX 703/683-2890
Email: pbanks@diabetes.org

>>> matt@biomedcentral.com 05/11 10:41 PM >>>
David Goodman wrote:

> Basically, a system costing as much as the present system is not
> affordable over the long run. If a system can be devised that would
> limit annual cost increases to the expected rate of library budget
> increases (optimistically, that means between 0% and 3%) then they might
> be. I think for any system based on OA Journals to prove viable, this
> needs to be demonstrated.

There is an assumption being made here that the cost of publishing
scientific reseach articles must inevitably be met from library budgets.
Certainly library budgets do not appear to be increasing at the same pace
as scientific research budgets, and are therefore not keeping pace with
the growth of scientific output - this is at least part of the reason for
the "serials crisis".

But major biomedical funders such as Wellcome, NIH and Howard Hughes
envision a solution to this problem. They have indicated that they believe
that the cost of publication should be seen as an inherent part of the
cost of doing research, and should come from research budgets.

As the Bethesda Statement says:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm 

"Our organizations sponsor and nurture scientific research to promote the
creation and dissemination of new ideas and knowledge for the public
benefit. We recognize that publication of results is an essential part of
scientific research and the costs of publication are part of the cost of
doing research."

Seen in that context, the cost of scientific publishing, even with the
existing inefficiencies, is relatively affordable, in that it amounts only
to a few percent of the overall cost of what the funders spend doing the
scientific research in the first place.

The major problem is not primarily the overall cost of the current system
of scientific publishing, but the fact that currently, even after all that
money has been spent to support the publication process, the research
doesn't end up being generally and openly available to the scientific
community. This greatly inhibits the free flow of information, and thefore
inhibits the progress of science.

Open Access publishing, by making costs more transparent, will no doubt
drive the overall cost of scientific publishing down, but that is almost
an incidental benefit. The most significant thing about Open Access is
that it will dramatically increasing the effectiveness of scientific
communication, and therefore will help the progress of science.

Regards,

Matt Cockerill
== 
Matthew Cockerill, Ph.D. 
Director of Operations
BioMed Central