Publishers highlight risks associated with open access
A group of international and European publishers has issued a joint declaration, underlining the benefits of the current scientific publishing system and the risks associated with open access. The declaration follows a study by the European Commission and a lengthy public consultation on the economic and technical evolution of scientific publication markets. Both the study and consultation concluded that open access would be beneficial to scientific research, leading to the wider dissemination of results and awareness rising about the benefits of research. Some members of publishing community at the time voiced concern over open access, particularly regarding the impact it will have on the quality of the peer review process and the survival of publishing houses which rely on journal subscriptions. These concerns are reiterated in the 10-point declaration, which was signed by 35 publishing houses (both European and international) and 8 publishing trade associations. On peer review it states: 'Publishers organise, manage and financially support the peer review processes of STM [science, technical and medical] journals. The imprimatur that peer-reviewed journals give to accepted articles (registration, certification, dissemination and editorial improvement) is irreplaceable and fundamental to scholarship.' While fully endorsing the Commission's goal of improving access and preservation of scientific information, the declaration makes the case that peer review would be undermined should an open deposit system of accepted manuscripts be implemented. It argues that such a system would also jeopardise subscription revenues for publishing houses. Articles have economic value for a considerable time after publication which embargo periods must reflect. At 12 months, on average, electronic articles still have 40-50% of their lifetime downloads to come. 'Free availability of significant proportions of a journal's content may result in its cancellation and therefore destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend,' reads point nine in the declaration. However, the declaration is in favour of making changes to the current system in order to make science publication more effective. It points to the significant investment by publishers intended to meet the challenges of digitisation and the annual 3% volume growth of international scholarly literature, 'yet less than 1% of total R&D [research and development] is spent on journals,' it points out. It also supports the creation of a rights-protected archive that 'preserves scholarship in perpetuity'. Raw research data should be made freely available to all researchers, and publishers should encourage the public posting of sets or sub-sets of data that are submitted with a paper to a journal wherever possible, it argues. The declaration warns against the risk of promoting one business model over another. Given the diverse array of journals on the market, a 'one size fits all' business model will not work, reads point ten of the declaration. The forthcoming Commission communication on 'Scientific information in the digital age' is expected to come up with proposals to address the issues of access, dissemination and preservation of scientific information. The debate about the future of scientific publishing will continue at a conference entitled 'Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area', taking place in Brussels on 15 and 16 February.