MP criticises government response on open access publishing
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
A leading Labour MP has criticised the government's response to proposals for an overhaul in the way scientific journals are funded, claiming that the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) has "kowtowed to the powerful publishing lobby."
Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, told the BMJ that the government's response to his committee's report was "abominable" and went on to criticise the apparent dilution of comments from one of the main supporters of the "open access, author pays" publishing model.
The "author pays" model of open access, online publishing, as exemplified by the new journal PLoS Medicine, could potentially threaten subscription based journals, such as the BMJ and the Lancet
Dr Gibson is a strong proponent of the "author pays" model of open access, online publishing, as exemplified by the Public Library of Science's new journal PLoS Medicine. The model could potentially threaten subscription based journals, such as the BMJ and the Lancet.
The science committee published a report in July calling for a government strategy to tackle the increasingly prohibitive cost of journal subscriptions and to investigate alternative ways of publishing scientific papers that would be cheaper. Among the suggestions for open access was the idea of institutional repositories for all papers published by universities or the author pays publishing model, which provides free access to the research ( BMJ 2004;329: 188, 24 July).
But the government's response, coordinated by the DTI, comes out firmly against the author pays model, arguing that it is not convinced this is "inherently superior" to the current publishing model.
And the views of the Joint Information Systems Committee—a government funded committee that advises on information systems and technology in higher education and is known to support open access journals—have, argued Dr Gibson, been "disregarded" in the government response because they conflict with interests held elsewhere in government, particularly the DTI.
The DTI says the government would need to be convinced the model was cheaper and more effective before fully supporting it.
"It is not obvious... that the author pays business model will give better value for money than the current one, and the government will require clear evidence before supporting it further," says the government response.
It adds that the government would not want to damage what is currently a "thriving, innovative market" in scientific, technical, and medical publishing. The income to UK science journals from overseas subscriptions alone is estimated to be ￡750m ($1390m; 1080m).
If there is any evidence that scientific publishers are increasing prices or making excessive profits through a subscription based model, that should be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, suggests the response from the DTI. It says it is not for the government to determine profit margins but should instead encourage a healthy market place.
Dr Gibson is furious at the response. "The DTI is apparently more interested in kowtowing to the powerful publishing lobby than it is in looking after the best interests of British science," he said.
"This isn't evidence based policy; it's policy based evidence," said Dr Gibson. "The DTI are clearly wearing the government's trousers on this issue, and that's wrong.
"Not only has ignored the advice of the body appointed to advise on this issue , it has actually tried to stop them giving us this advice directly, just because they support the committee's conclusions rather than the DTI's view," said Dr Gibson.
"It raises the whole question about setting up independent bodies," he told the BMJ. "How independent are they? How are they selected?"
Although the Joint Information Systems Committee's response is given as an annex to the DTI report, Dr Gibson suggests the version in the annex was amended after pressure from the DTI.
A spokesperson for the Joint Information Systems Committee said its position had not changed and that it remained supportive of open access publishing. He added that it had always favoured a mixed economy, rather than supporting just the author pays model.(Lynn Eaton)
Ian Gibson, chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, told the BMJ that the government's response to his committee's report was "abominable" and went on to criticise the apparent dilution of comments from one of the main supporters of the "open access, author pays" publishing model.
The "author pays" model of open access, online publishing, as exemplified by the new journal PLoS Medicine, could potentially threaten subscription based journals, such as the BMJ and the Lancet
Dr Gibson is a strong proponent of the "author pays" model of open access, online publishing, as exemplified by the Public Library of Science's new journal PLoS Medicine. The model could potentially threaten subscription based journals, such as the BMJ and the Lancet.
The science committee published a report in July calling for a government strategy to tackle the increasingly prohibitive cost of journal subscriptions and to investigate alternative ways of publishing scientific papers that would be cheaper. Among the suggestions for open access was the idea of institutional repositories for all papers published by universities or the author pays publishing model, which provides free access to the research ( BMJ 2004;329: 188, 24 July).
But the government's response, coordinated by the DTI, comes out firmly against the author pays model, arguing that it is not convinced this is "inherently superior" to the current publishing model.
And the views of the Joint Information Systems Committee—a government funded committee that advises on information systems and technology in higher education and is known to support open access journals—have, argued Dr Gibson, been "disregarded" in the government response because they conflict with interests held elsewhere in government, particularly the DTI.
The DTI says the government would need to be convinced the model was cheaper and more effective before fully supporting it.
"It is not obvious... that the author pays business model will give better value for money than the current one, and the government will require clear evidence before supporting it further," says the government response.
It adds that the government would not want to damage what is currently a "thriving, innovative market" in scientific, technical, and medical publishing. The income to UK science journals from overseas subscriptions alone is estimated to be ￡750m ($1390m; 1080m).
If there is any evidence that scientific publishers are increasing prices or making excessive profits through a subscription based model, that should be investigated by the Office of Fair Trading, suggests the response from the DTI. It says it is not for the government to determine profit margins but should instead encourage a healthy market place.
Dr Gibson is furious at the response. "The DTI is apparently more interested in kowtowing to the powerful publishing lobby than it is in looking after the best interests of British science," he said.
"This isn't evidence based policy; it's policy based evidence," said Dr Gibson. "The DTI are clearly wearing the government's trousers on this issue, and that's wrong.
"Not only has ignored the advice of the body appointed to advise on this issue , it has actually tried to stop them giving us this advice directly, just because they support the committee's conclusions rather than the DTI's view," said Dr Gibson.
"It raises the whole question about setting up independent bodies," he told the BMJ. "How independent are they? How are they selected?"
Although the Joint Information Systems Committee's response is given as an annex to the DTI report, Dr Gibson suggests the version in the annex was amended after pressure from the DTI.
A spokesperson for the Joint Information Systems Committee said its position had not changed and that it remained supportive of open access publishing. He added that it had always favoured a mixed economy, rather than supporting just the author pays model.(Lynn Eaton)