TEXTS
Open access to science and scholarship
By Peter Suber
The scientific journal was invented in 1665. For readers, journals
surpassed books for learning quickly about the recent work of others.
For authors, journals surpassed books for sharing new work quickly with
the wider world and, above all, for establishing priority over other
scientists working on the same problem. Because authors were rewarded
in these strong, intangible ways, they accepted the fact that journals
couldn't afford to pay them. Over time, journal revenue grew but
authors continued in the tradition of writing articles for impact, not
for money. Books were different because they often paid royalties. For
articles, authors were amply paid by advancing knowledge and advancing
their careers.
The
tradition that started in 1665 continues today and makes the scientific
or scholarly journal article nearly unique in the landscape of
intellectual property. It's one of the only genres that authors
willingly write and publish without expectation of payment. Unlike
other authors and creators, therefore, scientists find that their
interests are violated, not advanced, if access to their work is
limited to paying customers.
In the age of print, journals had
significant expenses that could only be recovered through subscription
fees. Price was a barrier for readers seeking access and for authors
seeking readers, but the economics of print left no alternative.
Moreover, until the 1970s or so, the price barrier was fairly low. But
since the 1970s, journal prices have risen faster than inflation, and
since the 1980s they have risen twice as fast as the price of health
care. Libraries now speak of a "pricing crisis" and cope with
exorbitant price increases by canceling subscriptions and cutting into
their book budgets. Against this background, the Internet emerged in
the 1990's as a kind of miracle. For the first time, it became
physically and economically possible to connect authors, who want to
give away their work, with readers who want to read and build on it.
This new form of distribution --online, free of charge, and free of
needless licensing restrictions-- is now called open access.
Open
access is compatible with copyright. Authors are copyright holders
until and unless they transfer copyright to a publisher. If authors
consent to open access while they still hold copyright, then open
access is authorized and lawful. The fact that most musicians,
film-makers, and software programmers do not consent to open access
should not make us pessimistic about open access to science. Most
musicians and other creators hope to generate revenue from their work.
Again, scientists and scholars are in the nearly unique position of
being able to consent to open access without losing revenue. They have
everything to gain and nothing to lose by doing so.
Open access
is compatible with print. Users who prefer to read printed text can
print any online file that they like (or at least any open-access
file). Libraries and publishers that want to use print for long-term
preservation can do the same. Journals that want to sell a print
edition to users who prefer it, may do so at cost, or even for a
profit. As long as journals offer an open-access edition, then priced,
printed, or enhanced editions do not interfere in any way. Open access
is compatible with peer review. In fact, all the major open-access
projects and campaigns --the Public Library of Science, the Budapest
Open Access Initiative, BioMed Central, SPARC, the Bethesda group--
insist on the importance of peer review. Open access to science and
scholarship is not about putting papers on personal web sites and
bypassing peer review. Open access removes the barrier of price, not
the filter of quality control.
Peer review consists of editorial
judgment and paper shuffling (or electronic file shuffling). In most
journals and most fields, the disciplinary experts exercising editorial
judgment donate their labor, just like the authors. The infrastructure
for peer review, however, does cost money. Somehow a journal must
assign the files to reviewers, distribute the files, monitor progress,
nag dawdlers, facilitate communication, and collect data. But these
clerical operations are steadily being taken over by software,
including open-source software, and the price of the infrastructure to
support the donated editorial expertise is steadily decreasing.
But
even low expenses must be recovered if open access is to be
sustainable. Open access archives (which don't perform peer review)
have trivial expenses, use open-source software, and are supported by
the institutions that benefit from increasing the visibility and impact
of their faculty. Open access journals (which do perform peer review)
are supported by article fees paid by the author's sponsor rather than
subscriptions paid by the reader's sponsor. These article fees are
closely related to the costs of peer review, manuscript preparation,
and hosting, and make free access possible for all readers connected to
the Internet. This model is similar to the economic model of television
in which some viewers pay for all, or advertisers pay production costs
so that viewers needn't do so. We know that open access is sustainable
in the long run because the cost of vetting and disseminating articles
online is much lower that the prices currently charged by publishers,
and paid by libraries, to access them.
Finally, open access is
within reach of scientists and scholars today. They can launch an
open-access archive whenever they like, at essentially no cost, and
more and more universities and disciplines are doing so. With a bit
more planning and investment, scholars can launch an open-access
journal. Conventional journals can experiment with open access article
by article, to learn the methods and economics of open-access
publishing. But scientists needn't wait for conventional journals to
make these experiments, and they needn't beg them to offer open access.
They needn't wait for markets or legislation. The Internet has already
given scientists a chance to reclaim control of scientific
communication. For the first time since the journal appeared on the
scene in 1665, price needn't be a barrier to access. For the first time
since the rise of the commercial publishing of scientific journals,
scientific communication can be in the hands of scientists, who answer
to one another, rather than corporations, who answer to shareholders.
The only question is whether scientists are ready to seize this
beautiful opportunity.
For more information and daily news updates, see the Open Access News weblog.
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter
Suber is Research Professor of Philosophy at Earlham College, Open
Access Project Director at Public Knowledge, and the author of the
SPARC Open Access Newsletter. More information and daily news updates
on Open Access can be found at
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Open-access archives and journals aren't just abstract possibilities
waiting to be realized. There is worldwide momentum to build both kinds of
open-access vehicle.
The OpCit Core Metalist counts dozens of open-access, OAI-compliant or
interoperable archives of research articles hosted by universities or
disciplines. If we count open-access archives that are not limited to
research articles, and not necessarily interoperable, then the UNESCO
Archives Portal, for example, lists nearly 5,000.
The Public Library of Science launched its first two open-access
journals this fall. BioMed Central has already launched more than 120, and
has a standing offer to help others launch new ones. When I visited it on
August 16, 2003, the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals listed 502
journals.
OpCit Core Metalist of Open Access Eprint Archives
http://opcit.eprints.org/explorearchives.shtml
UNESCO Archives Portal
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C21F22B95
Lund Directory of Open Access Journals
http://www.doaj.org
--
Source: http://world-information.org/wio/wsis/texts