It began with a frustrated blogpost by a distinguished mathematician. Tim Gowers and his colleagues had been grumbling among themselves for several years about the rising costs of academic journals.
They, like many other academics, were upset that the work produced by their peers, and funded largely by taxpayers, sat behind the paywalls of private publishing houses that charged UK universities hundreds of millions of pounds a year for the privilege of access.
There had been talk last year that a major scientific body might come out in public to highlight the problem and rally scientists to speak out against the publishing companies, but nothing was happening fast.
So, in January, Gowers wrote an article on his blog declaring that he would henceforth decline to submit to or review papers for any academic journal published by Elsevier, the largest publisher of scientific journals in the world.
He was not expecting what happened next. Thousands of people read the post and hundreds left supportive comments. Within a day, one of his readers had set up a Web site, The Cost of Knowledge, which allowed academics to register their protest against Elsevier.
The site now has almost 9,000 signatories, all of whom have committed themselves to refuse to either peer review, submit to or undertake editorial work for Elsevier journals.
“I wasn’t expecting it to make such a splash,” Gowers says. “At first, I was taken aback by how quickly this thing blew up.”
Gowers, a mathematician at Cambridge University and winner of the prestigious Fields Medal, had hit a nerve with academics who were increasingly fed up with the stranglehold that a few publishing companies have gained over the publication and distribution of the world’s scientific research.
The current publishing model for science is broken, say an ever-increasing number of supporters of open access publishing, a model whereby all scientific research funded by taxpayers would be made available on the Web for free.
Expensive paywalls not only waste university funds, they say, but slow down future scientific discovery and put up barriers for interested members of the public, politicians and patients’ groups who need access to primary research to exercise their democratic rights.
Imperial College London structural biologist says that scientists need to come to a new arrangement with publishers fit for the online age and that “for a long time, we’ve been taken for a ride and it’s got ridiculous.”
“We face important policy choices on a whole raft of issues — climate change, energy generation, cloning, stem cell technology, GM foods — that we cannot hope to address properly unless we have access to the scientific research in each of these areas,” he adds.
Academic publishers charge UK universities about £200 million (US$318.94 million) a year to access scientific journals, almost a tenth of the £2.2 billion distributed to them by the government, via the funding councils, for the basic running costs of university research.
Despite the recession, these charges helped academic publishers operate with profit margins of 35 percent or more, while getting their raw materials and the work of thousands of taxpayer and -charity-funded scientists free.
The big three publishing houses — Elsevier, Springer and Wiley — own most of the world’s more than 20,000 academic journals and account for about 42 percent of all journal articles published. And, even as library budgets over the past few years in the UK and North America have been flat or declining, journal prices have been rising by between 5 and 7 percent a year or more.
A standalone subscription to one of Elsevier’s most expensive journals, Biochimica et Biophysica Acta, costs more than 18,000 euros (US$23,700) a year. However, most universities buy bundles of journals, so they can soon rack up bills of more than £1 million each to access the journals their academics request.
“As scientists, we do let ourselves be pushed around an awful lot,” says Curry, who recently stopped reviewing for Elsevier and also resigned as an academic editor on an Elsevier journal. “We give out all this work for free to publishers and I think, just becoming aware of the huge profits that are involved, I’m much less willing to give up my time ... I’m more inclined to say I’m going to devote my time and effort to journals that are more strongly open access.”
However, price is only part of the issue. Academics and librarians are also asking themselves why publishers should have exclusive control of how research gets distributed and shared.
“We think that’s wrong and that’s not the most effective way of running scholarly communications,” Research Libraries UK executive director David Prosser says. “To be made effective, scholarly information has to be made as widely available as possible. We’ve seen an increasing amount of evidence that shows that, if we move to an open-access world, there are benefits not just to the scientific process itself, but also wider economic benefits.”
Until the arrival of the Web, printed peer-reviewed journals were the easiest and fastest way to keep up to speed with the ever-growing amount of research in an ever-growing number of universities around the world. However, as the numbers of journals grew, publishing companies became the de facto gatekeepers to scientific knowledge, restricting who could see the latest ideas rather than allowing ideas to spread as far as possible.
Academics submit the results of their research projects to a journal, whose editors then send the manuscript out to other academics in the same field for peer review.
If the article passes this stage, the editors often require researchers to pay hundreds or thousands of pounds if they go over a certain number of pages or if they want to include color diagrams. Once these fees are paid, the research is published and made available, in print and online, to anyone willing to pay for access. Organizing the whole process clearly takes effort, but does it justify the vast profit margins that publishing companies make?
Gowers says that publishers rarely make it explicit that the peer review they depend on for quality control is all done voluntarily and publishers are making profits on the back of this voluntary work.
“Academics write the papers, academics referee the papers, academics select the papers that are going to be published — it’s almost as though the publisher does nothing that we need except perhaps their organizational role and lending the name of the journal that confers a certain reputation,” Gowers says.
Nature, one of the world’s leading cross-disciplinary scientific journals and owned by the publishing group Macmillan, charges subscriptions for access to its suite of magazines and Web sites.
In an editorial published in January, the journal defended the value it added to the scientific process, saying that publishing original research papers required its editors to “undertake careful assessment of scientific significance, and the refereeing stage involves much deliberation, occasional debate and revisions that significantly enhance the robustness and scientific impact of the paper.”
An Elsevier spokesman said the subscription cost of research articles had “never been lower than it is today on a cost-per-download basis. This is a direct result of the investments publishers have made to digitize and disseminate scientific content.”
Volume discounts also meant the cost of an article was now “about one fifth of what it was just 10 years ago.”
In an open letter to scientists in February, Elsevier said: “While some of the facts about Elsevier are being misrepresented, the depth of feeling among some in the research community is real and something we take very seriously.”
It is easy for most research scientists to remain oblivious to the high cost of journal subscriptions, because they are not usually the ones having to negotiate with publishers, Wellcome Trust director Mark Walport says.
As an active researcher, he had easy access to all the papers he wanted and only became aware of the costs involved, he says, when he arrived at the trust and tried to read a paper that had been produced as a result of a research grant from the charity, only to be faced with an article charge of £25.
“Not surprisingly, I felt somewhat resentful about it,” he says.
Free University Berlin neurobiologist Bjorn Brembs, an outspoken supporter of open access, says the academic community should ditch publishers altogether, giving money spent on journal subscriptions to libraries instead. Brembs’ idea, a global archive of academic research and data, is a supercharged version of one method of open access already in operation.
ArXiv.org is a long-established Web site where anyone can post any research manuscript they like and make it available to the world for free. In some subjects, notably physics, almost everything appears here before it goes out to peer review and before publication in a scientific journal.
Another model of open access comes from the Public Library of Science (PLoS), an organization headquartered in San Francisco.
The organization publishes several top-tier journals, including PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine, as well as the more general PLoS ONE, a journal that publishes on any topic that could be classed as scientific and accepts all submissions where the conclusions are supported by the presented data.
All PLoS journals are available free on the Web as soon as they are published, and the costs of publication are borne by the researchers themselves — about US$2,900 per article for PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine and US$1,350 per article for PLoS ONE.
Perhaps sensing the mood last year, Nature’s parent company announced its own open-access journal in the mould of PLoS ONE, called Scientific Reports.
Many standard subscription-based journals will liberate their papers from paywalls if the authors pay a fee, a process known as “gold” open access. This means academics can deposit PDFs of their research on university Web sites or central repositories at a cost of between US$1,000 and US$5,000. For those without such funds, there is “green” open access, where a publisher might allow a researcher to deposit a peer-reviewed, though unformatted, PDF of the paper on a university database.
Even if a paper is made available on university repositories, though, often the copyright restrictions are so draconian that the research cannot be used in any subsequent scientific inquiry without prior permission.
This has profound implications for the ability of scientists to use modern techniques to get the most out of published research, which grows at the rate of more than 1.5 million new research articles every year.
Text mining, for example, is a relatively new research method where computer programs hunt through databases of plain-text research articles, looking for associations and connections — between drugs and side effects, for example, or between genes and disease — that a person scouring through papers one by one might never notice.
Last month, JISC, a government-funded agency that champions the use of digital technology in UK universities for research and teaching, published a report. This said that if text mining enabled just a 2 percent increase in productivity for scientists, it would be worth between £123 million and £157 million in working time per year.
However, the process requires research articles to be accessed, copied, analyzed and annotated — all of which could be illegal under current copyright laws.
Cameron Neylon, a biophysicist who will take up a position as director of advocacy at PLoS in July, says such copyright rules are problematic for several reasons.
“Firstly, we do a lot of reinventing the wheel because older literature isn’t as accessible as it should be. We really need to be running high-quality mining tools over the older literature, because there is a lot of value in there,” he says. “The second problem is that there is so much being generated today that people can’t keep up — there is simply too much to cover — and this means that we are getting more and more trapped in the silos of our own discipline and missing parallel work in the noise.”
Publishers are not the only hurdle to enabling wider adoption of open access — academics themselves are too. Academics are assessed on their publication record in scientific journals and the metrics of the system mean that the more prestigious the journal, the higher the chance there is of promotion or a research grant.
This problem is exacerbated by the Research Excellence Framework (REF), an exercise carried out every few years by the UK funding councils to assess the quality of every university department.
The assessments, largely based on publication records, determine how more than £2 billion is distributed every year to universities.
Universities are already gearing up for their assessments as part of the REF in 2014 and, although the adjudicating panels have been instructed to ignore the impact factors of journals, Curry says no one believes that it is “remotely possible to do so.”
This means a paper in Nature, Science, Cell or some other high-impact (but non-open-access) journal will count for far more in the REF assessments than the enlightened notion that scientific research should be as widely available as possible.
Neylon says the obsession among scientists, as authors, with prestige means they are making their lives as readers and consumers of research much harder than it needs to be.
“Prestige is driving the form and quality of papers and not always in a good direction,” he says.
However, perhaps the Web can provide better metrics for scientists in the future, such as download numbers, bookmarks in social bookmarking services or even tweets and Facebook likes.
“Ultimately, it will be a combination of all these things together that let you answer more specific questions about how your research is being used,” Neylon says. “It’s very early days for these measures, but, frankly, the other measures we’ve used traditionally aren’t very robust either.”
Publishing companies will no doubt need to change in response to the call for increased open access.
In response to the Cost of Knowledge petition, Elsevier said it would “create a scientific council for mathematics, to ensure that we are working in tandem with the mathematics community to address feedback and to give greater control and transparency to the community.”
However, Gowers doubts Elsevier could do anything bold enough to win back his support and is instead focused on ways the Web might open up scientific research in future. His main hope after writing his blogpost is that people get energized to try out new ideas and set up new open access journals or Web-based evaluation methods.
“A lot of people are suddenly spending a lot of time on the Internet and it’s a serious help to research that’s going on,” he says. “A lot more discussion goes on — the fact that I wrote a blogpost that got read by thousands of people very quickly is something that wouldn’t have happened five years ago.”
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
As former president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) wrapped up his visit to the People’s Republic of China, he received his share of attention. Certainly, the trip must be seen within the full context of Ma’s life, that is, his eight-year presidency, the Sunflower movement and his failed Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement, as well as his eight years as Taipei mayor with its posturing, accusations of money laundering, and ups and downs. Through all that, basic questions stand out: “What drives Ma? What is his end game?” Having observed and commented on Ma for decades, it is all ironically reminiscent of former US president Harry
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.