Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:28:49 +0530
From: Subbiah Arunachalam
Here is a news story from The Independent, London.
Arun
MPs call for biennial review of profits from science journals
By Rachel Stevenson 20 July 2004
Reed Elsevier and other publishers will be told by MPs today to be more
transparent in the pricing of scientific journals, as part of a wider call
to allow freer access to research.
After an eight-month inquiry into the market for scientific research, the
Science and Technology Committee publishes its report today. The committee
has found that libraries are struggling to afford subscriptions to all the
scientific journals its users need, and the committee will call on the
Office of Fair Trading to review journal pricing biennially.
The committee heard that average journal prices have risen 58 per cent
between 1998 and 2003, while library budgets have been cut back. "While
libraries are struggling to purchase journals, publishers' profit margins
remain exceptionally high compared with the rest of the publishing industry
- as much as 34 per cent at operating level in the case of Reed Elsevier,
the market leader," the report says. "High publisher profit margins need to
be set in the context of faltering library budgets and an impending crisis
in scientific journals provision."
As part of an overhaul of the system for publishing scientific material, the
committee will suggest that all universities and public-funded research
bodies publish all their research material online, free of charge.
But the committee has also given rise to the potential for an about-turn in
the business model for publishing scientific research. Publishing groups,
most of whom operate on a subscription model whereby authors can publish
freely and users of the material bear the cost, have been lobbying hard
against an alternative. This is an "author-pays" model where the author pays
to publish work and access to the research is free.
The committee has found that the author-pays model "could be viable" and
will ask for an independent study to look further at the possibility of
converting scientific publishing to this model. "Although early indications
are positive, it is too early to assess the impact that author-pays
publishing has had on access to scientific publications," the report says.
But it says the author-pays model could be vital for allowing researchers in
the developing world, many of whom cannot afford the increasing subscription
levels, to access research from the UK and the US. The committee wants the
Government to explore giving "financial assistance" to publishers to make
the switch to author-pays.
Reed has already said it will allow wider scope for authors to
"self-archive" by publishing their work on either their own or their
university's website. And today it will make a statement to welcome the
proposals. But its recent pronouncement on the issue raised eyebrows at the
committee, which said it was "in little doubt that Elsevier timed the
announcement of its new policy on self-archiving to pre-empt the publication
of this report". It is understood that an inquiry has begun into whether the
report was leaked to Reed, which has denied having any advance knowledge of
the committee's findings. Reed was, at least, credited by the committee for
keeping the rise in its prices to more moderate levels. In what will be
another major upset to the publishing industry, the committee will call on
authors to retain copyright of their material, which is then licensed out to
publishing companies when the research is printed.
The committee also scrutinised large, bulk-buy deals offered by publishing
companies to libraries. This is known as bundling, and involves selling
subscriptions of the entire range of titles from one publisher at a lower
price than individual subscriptions. The committee will tell the publishing
industry that bundling "does not present libraries with value for money".
