{"id":3152,"date":"2017-10-03T09:23:13","date_gmt":"2017-10-03T08:23:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/?p=3152"},"modified":"2017-10-03T11:03:09","modified_gmt":"2017-10-03T10:03:09","slug":"why-i-dont-share-elseviers-vision-of-the-transition-to-open-access","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2017\/10\/03\/why-i-dont-share-elseviers-vision-of-the-transition-to-open-access\/","title":{"rendered":"Why I don&#8217;t share Elsevier&#8217;s vision of the transition to open access"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a title=\"View 'Screenshot: Working towards open access' on Flickr.com\" href=\"https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/sc63\/37421351706\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" style=\"margin-left: auto;margin-right: auto\" src=\"https:\/\/farm5.staticflickr.com\/4483\/37421351706_f2cd33294b_z.jpg\" alt=\"Screenshot: Working towards open access\" width=\"640\" height=\"228\" border=\"0\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>Last week Elsevier\u2019s VP for Policy and Communications, Gemma Hersh,\u00a0published a<a href=\"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/connect\/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access#comment-3542279827\"> think-piece<\/a>\u00a0on the company\u2019s\u00a0vision of the transition to open access (OA). She makes some valid points but glosses over others that I would like to pick up on. Some of Elsevier\u2019s vision is self-serving, but that should come as no surprise since the company has skin in the game and naturally wants to defend its considerable commercial interests. \u00a0And some of it is, frankly, bizarre. You can read the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/connect\/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access\">whole article<\/a> for yourself \u2013\u00a0it\u2019s not long. I would recommend also having a look at the <a href=\"https:\/\/medium.com\/@TobyABGreen\/a-response-to-elseviers-insights-into-making-the-transition-to-open-access-possible-f3deb155b061\">reaction from the\u00a0OECD\u2019s Toby Green<\/a>. Below, I have highlighted and commented \u00a0on (in blue) the portions that struck me, and tried to fill in some of the missing pieces of what is a very tricky puzzle.<\/p>\n<p>The article opens constructively:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cElsevier [\u2026] is thinking about how [\u2026] alternative access models tailored to geographical needs and expectations can help us further advance open access.&#8221;<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">\u2018Tailored&#8217; sounds like a euphemism. In part, it reflects consideration of differences in the research intensity of different nations (even in the developed world), which means that there would be winners and losers in a switch to a gold OA model funded by article processing charges (APCs); but there is no recognition of the constraints due to ongoing global inequalities. OA ameliorates that immediately as far as accessing the\u00a0literature goes, though we need to think hard about how to create OA business models that address the challenges to authors from the global south.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201cElsevier and other STM publishers generally agree with many of the authors\u2019 observations and recommendations, notably that there may be enough money in the system overall to transition globally to gold open access.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">How much money is \u2018enough\u2019? Readers should be aware that Elsevier has makes adjusted operating profit margins of around 37%. In 2016, according to the l<a href=\"https:\/\/www.relx.com\/investors\/annual-reports\/2016\">atest annual report of the parent company, RELX<\/a>, this amounted to \u00a3800m profit on revenues of \u00a32,320m for their science, technical and medical division. It\u2019s no surprise that the company wants to protect their business. But that motive should be clear to all stakeholders, including academics and the public. Can publicly-funded researchers, who support <a href=\"https:\/\/alexholcombe.wordpress.com\/2015\/05\/21\/scholarly-publisher-profit-update\/\">high-profit publishers<\/a> such as Elsevier, Wiley and Springer-Nature\u00a0with their labour as authors, editors and reviewers, look the taxpayer in the eye and them they are delivering value for money?<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201c\u2026One possible first step for Europe to explore would be to enable European articles to be available gold open access within Europe and green open access outside of Europe.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">This simply does not compute. It is a kind of double-speak that seeks to re-define unrestricted access \u2013 the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org\/read\">original definition of\u00a0open access<\/a> \u2013 as restricted access, depending on your location. Hersh has <a href=\"https:\/\/www.elsevier.com\/connect\/working-towards-a-transition-to-open-access#comment-3542279827\">defended this notion<\/a>\u00a0 as creative \u201coutside of the box\u201d thinking. Maybe so, but it&#8217;s also outside my comprehension.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Hersh then moves on to consider mechanisms for flipping subscription journals to OA:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cOne successful model is the SCOAP3 program. A particularly powerful aspect of SCOAP3 (even if initially cumbersome to administer) stems from the detailed and systematic planning of the various ways in which money needs to flow through the system for journals to become exclusively gold open access. Money is carefully redirected from library budgets to a central pool administered by CERN, and from there to publishers in the form of APCs. [\u2026]\u00a0Drawing on the principles of this program could help us all with the much broader challenge of transitioning all hybrid journals to become fully gold open access.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">The focus here, once again, is on money \u2013 and, in my view, \u00a0on preserving the status quo. SCOAP3 may well have shown that subscription journals may be flipped to OA but reaching agreement required complex and protracted negotiations and only worked because the deal was confined to a well-defined group of researchers with links to a single, large international facility. We are a long way from seeing how that might work in less focused disciplines. Hybrid OA (publishing OA articles in subscription journals) was originally proposed as <a href=\"http:\/\/onlinelibrary.wiley.com\/doi\/10.1087\/095315103322110923\/abstract\">a mechanism to fund flipping<\/a> but it is a pathway that Elsevier seems not to recognise. Against accusations of \u201cdouble-dipping\u201d \u2013 in which hybrid OA journals keep subscription charges up even as the proportion of OA content grows \u2013 Elsevier has maintained that <a href=\"http:\/\/www.rluk.ac.uk\/about-us\/blog\/the-costs-of-double-dipping\/\">it simply doesn\u2019t exist<\/a>. Have they had a change of heart?\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p><span style=\"color: #000000\">\u201cWe believe that the primary reason to transition to gold open access should not be to save money (it won\u2019t, and there will be winners and losers as costs are redistributed) but that it would be better for research and scholarship\u2026\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">Well, at least that\u2019s (rightly) stated as a belief \u2013 an act of faith. It\u2019s not a belief I share. There are many historical examples of new technology driving down costs and becoming available to the many, not the few: printing, telephony, cars, and digital cameras, for example. Admittedly in each of these cases a functioning market was required which is still lacking in scholarly publishing. The reasons for this are <a href=\"https:\/\/zenodo.org\/record\/546100#.WdND19uZPUI\">well known<\/a> \u00a0and present a tough nut to crack, but if we are going to talk about money let\u2019s also be up-front about profits and value for money. Stuart Shieber <a href=\"https:\/\/blogs.harvard.edu\/pamphlet\/2013\/01\/29\/why-open-access-is-better-for-scholarly-societies\/\">analytical post<\/a>\u00a0on the difference in value provided by commercial and non-profit publishers is illuminating on this point. It&#8217;s also worth remembering <a href=\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2015\/03\/30\/open-letter-publishers-association-please-amend-open-access-decision-tree\/\">Elsevier&#8217;s tenacious defence of the Publisher&#8217;s Association decision tree<\/a>, which to this day presents a incorrect (but revenue-raising) interpretation of the OA policy of Research Councils UK.\u00a0<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201cAdvocates for a global transition to gold open access alone should be clear that an entirely gold open access system would cost more in some regions and for some institutions \u2013 especially those that are highly research intensive and therefore pay more in a \u201cpay to publish\u201d model \u2013 and that they consider this a price worth paying.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">To my mind this is an argument for getting governments and inter-governmental bodies to take a keener interest in these affairs &#8211; they are the major paymasters, after all.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>\u201cAnother reason APCs would rise is that the money flowing into the current system from outside the academic research community \u2013 i.e., journal subscriptions from industry \u2013 is estimated to be about 25 percent of the total. In a \u201cpay-to-publish model,\u201d systemic costs would need to be borne by the academic research community rather than shared with industry.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">If about 75% of the total funding for publishing comes from universities &amp; research institutes \u2013 public institutions for the most part \u2013 then this is yet another reason for governments to take the lead in not letting costs get out of control. There is a public interest at stake here, not least because of the close links between publicly-funded research and national policies on industry and innovation around the world .<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>The conclusions to piece contains this rhetorical flourish:<\/p>\n<p>\u201cA fully gold open access world inhabited only by predatory publishers who will publish anything as long as they are paid is not a healthy and prosperous world.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">For one thing, there is no serious prospect of a world \u201cinhabited only by predatory publishers\u201d. Such outfits, which scoop up APCs while providing no meaningful peer review, <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nature.com\/news\/stop-this-waste-of-people-animals-and-money-1.22554\">have gained purchase in some countries<\/a>\u00a0but are now feeling the heat of regulation \u2013 heat that will only increase as open peer review gains traction. Their negative impact is, in any case, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.triple-c.at\/index.php\/tripleC\/article\/view\/867\">arguable<\/a>. Hersh also seems to be\u00a0suggesting that cheaper open access journals are necessarily low-quality, but there are powerful counter-examples, such as <a href=\"https:\/\/peerj.com\/\">PeerJ<\/a>. (By the way, nothing is likely to me more effective at killing off\u00a0predatory journals than evaluation systems that judge\u00a0research papers on their intrinsic merits.)<\/span><\/li>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">For another, the talk about a\u00a0\u201chealthy and prosperous world\u201d sounds a distinctly bum note after the earlier proposal to erect a great, golden paywall around Europe. There\u2019s a striking contrast here with the <a href=\"http:\/\/www.g7italy.it\/en\/news\/the-ministerial-meeting-on-science-has-ended\">G7\u00a0Science Communiqu\u00e9<\/a>, which was also published last week. We\u00a0should of course always be circumspect about the\u00a0pronouncements of politicians from the global stage but that\u00a0document did at least articulate a\u00a0vision to address global challenges and inequalities, and to use open science to bolster the robustness and utility of publicly-funded\u00a0research.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>And finally, we are left with the posturing (the italics are mine):<\/p>\n<p>\u201cThe pace of change will ultimately be driven by researchers and the choices they make about how they wish to disseminate their research outputs. We can help them embrace open access by working closely with funders and research institutions <em>to move beyond advocacy to possibility<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li style=\"list-style-type: none\">\n<ul>\n<li><span style=\"color: #333399\">Thus writes the commercial publisher advocate. Reader, beware.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last week Elsevier\u2019s VP for Policy and Communications, Gemma Hersh,\u00a0published a think-piece\u00a0on the company\u2019s\u00a0vision of the transition to open access (OA). She makes some valid points but glosses over others that I would like to pick up on. Some of &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2017\/10\/03\/why-i-dont-share-elseviers-vision-of-the-transition-to-open-access\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":7,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[152],"tags":[145],"class_list":["post-3152","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-open-access-2","tag-open-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3152","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/7"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3152"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3152\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3152"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3152"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3152"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}