Research councils' requirements could bankrupt academic journals
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Journal publishers are concerned that a new proposal that requires all researchers who receive public research funding to post their results on publicly accessible electronic databases will lead to the financial collapse of many academic journals.
The proposal is in a consultation document from the Research Councils UK, which represents the eight research councils in the United Kingdom, including the Medical Research Council. The document considers the dissemination of, and access to, research outputs in the form of journal articles and conference proceedings.
The document says that ideas and knowledge derived from research funded with public money must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly, and effectively as practicable.
To achieve this, it proposes that research councils require any researcher awarded a grant from 1 October 2005 to deposit any resulting journal article or conference "in an appropriate e-print repository (either institutional or subject-based), wherever such a repository is available to the award-holder."
This would mean that universities and other research institutions would each have an electronic archive of all research done by its staff. Researchers would provide a copy of any paper accepted for publication for the electronic archive.
Alex Williamson, publishing director of BMJ Journals, and a council member of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers said, "If this proposal were to go through, it would seriously prejudice the existing subscription based model for journals. If researchers had to put their research on electronic databases, a lot of people would stop subscriptions to journals, which would then go broke and close."
Sally Morris, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, added, "The problem is that, particularly for journals with relatively infrequent publication, or in slower moving fields, the free availability of content (or of a nearly as good version of if) after a short period may be sufficient to persuade cash strapped librarians that they can economise on those subscriptions. Of course, if the content is made free immediately on publication the threat is even greater."
Ms Morris suggested, "There are other ways of increasing access to research information. Most publishers have been experimenting for several years with creative licensing models which make more content available to more people; many also offer free or heavily discounted access to readers in the less developed world."
This type of approach has been adopted by the National Institutes of Health in the United States for research that it has funded. Authors deposit papers immediately on acceptance, but public access is possible only after a period of up to 12 months.
Ms Williamson argued that the existing journal system provided a valuable quality assurance role through its peer review process. Many journals also added value to research papers by commissioning editorials and commentaries designed to set new research findings in context.
In the consultation document, the research councils considered it likely that many different publishing models and mechanisms would coexist for the foreseeable future and suggested that individual research councils must assess what works best for their particular research communities.
Whatever publication method was used for research, the statement advised that effective mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that research outputs were subject to rigorous quality assurance through peer review.
The models and mechanisms used for publication and access to research results must also be efficient and cost effective in the use of public funds. Ms Williamson said that the Research Councils UK had assumed that the publication model in which authors pay for their research to be published would be workable. "But this has not been proved," she warned.
Ms Morris concluded, "Publishing information costs money, and, at some point in the information chain, these costs have to be paid for. Some publishers are experimenting with the 慳uthor side payment?open access model, and we are currently conducting research to analyse the financial and non-financial effects of this. Simply parasitising subscription licence based journals seems to us to be a risky strategy, which might even end up killing the host."
The consensus statement was developed by representatives from the member research councils and representatives from the funding councils, the Consortium of University and Research Libraries, the British Library, the Wellcome Trust, and publishers (commercial, not for profit, subscription based, and open access). It is currently being circulated for comment from a range of groups, including vice chancellors of universities, with plans to publish the final statement in May this year. The Research Councils UK said that it was unable to comment on the concerns of publishers until its consultation was complete.(Susan Mayor)
The proposal is in a consultation document from the Research Councils UK, which represents the eight research councils in the United Kingdom, including the Medical Research Council. The document considers the dissemination of, and access to, research outputs in the form of journal articles and conference proceedings.
The document says that ideas and knowledge derived from research funded with public money must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation, and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly, and effectively as practicable.
To achieve this, it proposes that research councils require any researcher awarded a grant from 1 October 2005 to deposit any resulting journal article or conference "in an appropriate e-print repository (either institutional or subject-based), wherever such a repository is available to the award-holder."
This would mean that universities and other research institutions would each have an electronic archive of all research done by its staff. Researchers would provide a copy of any paper accepted for publication for the electronic archive.
Alex Williamson, publishing director of BMJ Journals, and a council member of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers said, "If this proposal were to go through, it would seriously prejudice the existing subscription based model for journals. If researchers had to put their research on electronic databases, a lot of people would stop subscriptions to journals, which would then go broke and close."
Sally Morris, chief executive of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers, added, "The problem is that, particularly for journals with relatively infrequent publication, or in slower moving fields, the free availability of content (or of a nearly as good version of if) after a short period may be sufficient to persuade cash strapped librarians that they can economise on those subscriptions. Of course, if the content is made free immediately on publication the threat is even greater."
Ms Morris suggested, "There are other ways of increasing access to research information. Most publishers have been experimenting for several years with creative licensing models which make more content available to more people; many also offer free or heavily discounted access to readers in the less developed world."
This type of approach has been adopted by the National Institutes of Health in the United States for research that it has funded. Authors deposit papers immediately on acceptance, but public access is possible only after a period of up to 12 months.
Ms Williamson argued that the existing journal system provided a valuable quality assurance role through its peer review process. Many journals also added value to research papers by commissioning editorials and commentaries designed to set new research findings in context.
In the consultation document, the research councils considered it likely that many different publishing models and mechanisms would coexist for the foreseeable future and suggested that individual research councils must assess what works best for their particular research communities.
Whatever publication method was used for research, the statement advised that effective mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that research outputs were subject to rigorous quality assurance through peer review.
The models and mechanisms used for publication and access to research results must also be efficient and cost effective in the use of public funds. Ms Williamson said that the Research Councils UK had assumed that the publication model in which authors pay for their research to be published would be workable. "But this has not been proved," she warned.
Ms Morris concluded, "Publishing information costs money, and, at some point in the information chain, these costs have to be paid for. Some publishers are experimenting with the 慳uthor side payment?open access model, and we are currently conducting research to analyse the financial and non-financial effects of this. Simply parasitising subscription licence based journals seems to us to be a risky strategy, which might even end up killing the host."
The consensus statement was developed by representatives from the member research councils and representatives from the funding councils, the Consortium of University and Research Libraries, the British Library, the Wellcome Trust, and publishers (commercial, not for profit, subscription based, and open access). It is currently being circulated for comment from a range of groups, including vice chancellors of universities, with plans to publish the final statement in May this year. The Research Councils UK said that it was unable to comment on the concerns of publishers until its consultation was complete.(Susan Mayor)