The UK government has rejected calls from an influential committee of MPs to alter radically the way scientific papers are published.
The government published its response to the UK Science and Technology Committee鈥檚 report on open-access scientific publishing on Monday.
The committee鈥檚 original report, published in July 2004, considered how scientific research is published and made available to researchers and the public. Traditionally, authors submit papers, which are then assessed by reviewers before publication in journals. These journals are then bought by libraries鈥� the authors of the papers pay nothing.
Advertisement
However, 鈥渙pen-access鈥� publishing has been growing in popularity. In one model, the authors pay a fee for publication and then, after review, the work is made freely accessible to everyone. Its supporters argue that this approach is fairer, given that much research is paid for by taxpayers鈥� money.
Level playing field
The government鈥檚 response dismisses some of the open-access models the committee proposed it should back. 鈥淭he government鈥檚 approach is to facilitate a level playing field so that the market can develop without any institutional barriers being put in the way of any particular publishing model,鈥� it says.
鈥淭his option is the most appropriate to encourage competition and innovation in publishing, to promote greater accessibility, to maintain quality and to retain freedom of choice for authors.鈥�
But MPs on the committee hit out at the 鈥渙bstructive鈥� response. They urge the government to 鈥渞econsider its position鈥� and accuse the department of trade and industry (DTI) of trying to 鈥渘eutralise鈥� the views of other government departments on open-access publishing.
鈥淭he DTI is apparently more interested in kowtowing to the powerful publishing lobby than it is in looking after the best interests of British science,鈥� says Ian Gibson, chair of the committee. 鈥淭his isn鈥檛 evidence-based policy, it鈥檚 policy-based evidence.鈥�
Jan Velterop, publisher and director, of open-access publishers BioMed Central, says he was disappointed and surprised at the government鈥檚 response. 鈥淭he playing field is so unbelievably tilted, I can鈥檛 see how saying it鈥檚 all hunky-dory can make it level,鈥� he told New 杏吧原创. He believes that by not favouring even the possibility of open-access publishing, the government is severely skewing the field in favour of traditional publishers.
Status quo
However, representatives of the UK traditional scientific publishing industry welcomed the government鈥檚 response. Traditional publishing models 鈥渁re competitive, transparent and efficient, with a strong record of both investment and innovation,鈥� says Graham Taylor, a spokesman for the UK Publishers Association. 鈥淭hey serve the research and academic communities and the British public well.鈥�
Catherine May, a spokeswoman for publishing giant Reed Elsevier, also welcomed the government鈥檚 response. She adds: 鈥淥bviously we do have enormous sympathy for the position of academic librarians whose budgets are under pressure.鈥�
Countering arguments that there has been a steep rise in the price of journals, she says a 鈥渉uge expansion鈥� in research has meant journals are getting larger and larger, entailing more production costs.
Government strategy
The committee鈥檚 original report stresses that 鈥渁 government strategy is urgently needed鈥�. But the government鈥檚 response states: 鈥淭he government is not aware that there are major problems in accessing scientific information, or that there is a large unsatisfied demand for this.鈥�
The committee recommended that UK institutions establish online repositories where research can be accessed free of charge. The government agrees calling such repositories a 鈥渟ignificant development worthy of encouragement鈥�.
But it does not prescribe a national policy, leaving this decision to individual institutions. The government also says it is not convinced that the author-pays model is 鈥渋nherently superior鈥� to the current model.
Velterop says the UK government鈥檚 views are in contrast to those in the US. He says cross-party US politicians have supported proposals by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) that they should be able to make research funded by NIH freely available to the public within six months of publication, regardless of whether they publish in an open-access or traditional journal.
BioMed Central, launched in 1999, publishes 120 journals, 116 of which are online and open-access. To publish, an author 鈥� usually via their research grant or institution 鈥損ays 拢330 per article.
New 杏吧原创 is owned by Reed Business Information, part of Reed Elsevier