Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy: optional open access and not-for-profit

David S. Reeves1,*, Colin W. E. Drummond1 and Mandy Hill2

1 Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy Editorial Office, 11 The Wharf, 16 Bridge Street, Birmingham B1 2JS, UK; 2 Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK


* Corresponding author. Tel: +44-121-633-0415; Fax: +44-121-643-9497; E-mail: jac{at}bsac.org.uk

Abstract

All JAC articles are currently freely accessible 12 months after publication, a form of deferred open access. From 2006, JAC will offer the option of author-pays open access, so that individual articles can be made open access immediately upon publication. In addition, JAC will allow the deposition by authors of post-prints of the accepted version of their article as encouraged by granting bodies such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH), and others. We are adopting such policies to support our authors who must comply with the requirements of their funding bodies and institutions, however, we do not believe that deposition of the post-print form of the article is the most useful step for the progression of research, as we shall note in this article. These changes will enable JAC to deliver the potential for expanded access to articles at a rate determined by the desire among the author community to do so, but without compromising the long-term viability of JAC and the services we offer.

Keywords: JAC , author-pays models , post-prints , scientific journal publishing

Introduction

Publication [noun] 1a the preparation and issuing of a book, newspaper, engraving etc to the public...2 the act or an instance of making something publicly known.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary, Ninth Edition

With the development of the Internet, the act of publication changed dramatically. The widespread availability of personal computers connected to the Internet at home and work, allied with sophisticated search engines, have made it possible to publish information with previously undreamt of speed and accessibility.

The current model of scientific journal publishing was developed several hundred years ago, when communication technologies were significantly less advanced. Early journals were supported and published by learned societies, and developed from the previous practice of letters exchanged by investigators. Journals were intended to form a ‘public’ record of current ideas. Owing to the limitations of publishing technologies at the time and in subsequent centuries, access to journals was restricted to paying subscribers, at least until they were available in libraries. Commercial publishers began to join the fray in the 19th century.

The market for scientific journals is not like the market for other commodities. It is driven by a different set of values. Scientists offer their work to journals free of charge. Referees and editors are also often unpaid, gaining valuable professional experience through their work on journals and also a sense of contributing to the wider scientific purpose of the accumulation and advancement of knowledge.

The market for scientific journals has been criticized widely in recent times for being relatively price insensitive (demand for journals remains the same no matter what the price).1,2 The average journal price has increased substantially ahead of inflation in recent times1 and some commentators consider that the increases (mainly from commercial publishers) are beyond what is reasonable. There is also the question of the dominance of the market by a relatively few players from among the large number of publishers.3 There is, however, a sign that the current business model is starting to fail as the market growth rate fell between 2000 and 2003 from 7% to about 3%.4

The concurrent trend of dissatisfaction with rising journal prices and the sudden availability of an easy route to publication through the Internet meant conflict was bound to develop.57

Open access

The progenitors of the open access and allied movements began seriously to question the traditional publishing model in the mid-1990s. Understandably, they focused on weaknesses in the traditional model including high journal prices, restricted public access to what is often publicly-funded scientific research, and the imperfect nature of peer review.

The goal of open access advocates is that all scientific articles should be freely available from the point of publication for the public good, especially as much of the research published has already been funded from governmental or charitable sources. This is anathema to the business model of traditional journals, which gains its income from the fact that access is restricted (at least initially) to paying subscribers. Efforts were therefore made to set up open access journals to compete with traditional journals (for example the BioMed Central journals http://www.biomedcentral.com/; and the Public Library of Science journals).8 These new journals have, in general, not yet presented a really significant challenge to their well-established traditional rivals. Understandably, authors (who are more concerned about the prestige of the journal they publish in than its subscription cost) have not turned their backs on traditional journals in the numbers that open access supporters might have hoped. Therefore the open access supporters have refocused their campaign, this time in favour of trying to persuade traditional journals to transfer the burden of the unavoidable costs of publication from the subscriber to the author (or, more accurately, usually the author's grant-giving body) and hence remove the requirement for restricted reader access. Healthcare-related journal articles are a particularly emotive issue for open access, with advocates stressing that it is unethical to ‘withhold’ through subscriber-only barriers potentially lifesaving information from doctors and patients. In an ideal world, access to this information would be free. A seemingly logical extension of this argument would be that all lifesaving healthcare should also be free to the patient; this appealing concept again similarly sidesteps the fact that real costs of delivery will be incurred and someone (usually the patient, their insurer or the taxpayer) will have to pay the bill.

An allied supporting argument frequently advanced is that patients should have free access to any information on their condition (especially information from publicly-funded research). Some have questioned whether access to the primary literature will be of much practical advantage to members of the public.9 Much of the scientific and medical literature is likely to prove impenetrable to most of the general public, who may not understand or, perhaps more worryingly, may misunderstand or misinterpret the information, which, near the cutting edge of research, may present a confused picture anyway. Unless the scientific and medical literature undergoes a sweeping change to make it easier to understand by laypeople, it is hard to see how free public access to primary literature will be a direct benefit. However, the arguments for and against scientists/physicians as ‘priest–interpreters’ standing between research and the public are complex and beyond the scope of this discussion.

No such thing as a free lunch—author pays

The open access lobby now seems to have accepted that, even with online-only delivery, real costs are involved in the publication process and that someone has to meet these costs. If free access is the goal, the only remaining obvious target to meet these costs is the authors.

Several grant-giving bodies have declared that they will support author-pays models of open access publication and are apparently attempting to accelerate the migration to open access by insisting that accepted articles are made available within a repository (such as PubMed Central) within a fixed time of publication of the article in a journal.10,11 But these business models remain unproven and the real costs of publishing are the subject of continued debate.

Not all publishers are the same

Traditional model publishers are split broadly into two groups: commercial publishers and not-for-profit publishers. Commercial publishers have frequently been roundly and loudly criticized for exploiting any price insensitivity in the journals market in order to make what are characterized as ‘excessive’ profits from their journal publishing activities. It would appear that these publishers have little to gain from any model involving immediate free access to articles and notably many of these journals do not allow any free access or make available search facilities, even to archive material.

Not-for-profit publishers, which include many learned societies and university presses (such as the BSAC and OUP, respectively), are generally sympathetic to the goal of unfettered free access but have a keen appreciation that the publication process is not costless and so have not rushed headlong to adopt open access in the absence of another tested source of income. Not-for-profit publishers will often make their journals' articles free to access after a period of time which has been judged is long enough to prevent current subscribers from cancelling their subscriptions. This is 6 months in the case of the ASM journals12 and 12 months for the JAC.13 This is a clear nod to the goal of unfettered access. Not-for-profit publishers use any surplus from their publishing activities to support their professional aims.

It is also important to note that all publishers, both commercial and not-for-profit, have used the Internet to increase vastly the dissemination of journals worldwide. Through a combination of sales to regional, national and corporate library groups and free or discounted access to institutes in over 120 developing countries, the number of institutes with access to JAC, for example, has nearly trebled in 5 years. In addition, it is possible to pay for access to an individual article. Furthermore, all JAC articles become freely accessible after 12 months. It has been argued that there is no real need for open access when such policies are applied and that little increased usage will be achieved, although there are not enough clear data to support either position.

The proponents of open access have apparently seen little to distinguish between commercial and not-for-profit publishers. It appears that many open access supporters have become increasingly frustrated with the lack of movement towards their goal from traditional (mainly commercial) publishers and may have resolved that the only solution to the impasse is to bring about the destruction of traditional publication models.

The unfortunate outcome of this attitude, if it proves successful, is that a large number of the desirable features of the current system could be destroyed in the process unless we take cautious steps.14

The debate has frequently been portrayed as polarized with ‘intransigent’ commercial publishers on the one hand and ‘zealous’open access supporters on the other. Not-for-profit publishers, who can appreciate at least some of the arguments advanced by each side, are a numerous and highly diverse group. It is essential that their views and contribution to scientific publishing as a whole are not overlooked.

The controlling interests in not-for-profit publishers are members of the scientific community themselves and are thus ideally placed to judge and protect the interests of science itself. During any time of change such as this, it is essential that the scientific community as a whole does not allow the adoption of any measure that is likely to disturb the clarity of the scientific record.

JAC optional open access and post-print policy

In order to support our authors, who must comply with the requirements of their funding bodies and institutions, JAC is adopting a new optional open access and post-print policy.

Optional open access

In light of recent developments, from January 2006 JAC will be offering the option of ‘author-pays’ open access publication. If the authors of accepted papers are willing to pay a £1500 fee (~US$2800), their article will be immediately freely available to any reader. Discounted optional open access fees will be available for authors from developing countries. In addition, any author from an institution that holds an online institutional subscription to JAC will also be eligible for a discounted rate (£800). Authors will be invited to choose their favoured mode of publication after acceptance, either immediate open access or the standard deferred open access 12 months after appearance in a print issue. JAC's current policy is that all articles become freely available 12 months after print publication and this will remain the same. The online subscription prices of JAC will be adjusted for 2007 and subsequent years according to how much content was paid for by the authors and thus freely available online during the previous year. As more subscriptions are lost, however, the author charges will also rise.

This optional open access model will satisfy the requirements of some granting agencies, such as the Wellcome Trust in the UK, which are now demanding deposition of articles into a subject-based repository such as PubMed Central as a condition of grants, but are willing to support author-pays charges.10

This mixed model, which will potentially encompass income from traditional subscriptions and author fees, will enable the Journal to test the desire among authors to move towards an author-pays open access model. It is of course essential that the Journal remains solvent during any potentially unstable transitional period.

Post-print policy

Other notable granting agencies, such as the US National Institutes of Health (NIH),15 are now encouraging authors to make available a post-print version of any article on PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. Many institutes are also starting to require their researchers to deposit the post-print of their article into institutional repositories. A ‘post-print’ version is defined in this situation as ‘the final version of the article as accepted for publication’. We believe that 12 months is the minimum time delay after publication that would not have a significantly negative impact on subscriptions. We will allow authors to deposit post-prints if they wish, but believe there are compelling arguments, as outlined below, that this action is at best pointless and at worst potentially damaging to the scientific record.

It would appear that the aim of this requirement is to create a de facto open access archive of material that would otherwise be inaccessible in any traditional-model journal with no freely accessible archive.

The requirement for deposition of post-prints makes very little sense for any journal, such as JAC, which makes all articles free after 12 months. In addition, we are concerned, and believe the scientific community at large should be concerned, about the availability of different versions of any article. Subtle but crucial changes may be made to correct articles during the copy-editing and proof-checking stages. We believe that readers should be presented with one version only to protect the integrity and accuracy of the scientific record. In addition, the post-print version would not be supported by electronic-only supplementary data, corrections to the Journal electronic copy, or links to relevant articles, such as Editorials that provide context.

If authors do deposit their post-prints, we would urge them to also deposit the URL which they are sent when their article is published online, as this will enable all authors to link to the definitive journal version of their article and hopefully also ensure clear citations.

It is also clear that as more and more repositories are formed and need development and maintenance, this will be a new drain on resources and it is not clear to us what the real benefits are if all publishers can be encouraged to allow links to the definitive version of the article.

Evolution not revolution

Some would argue that scientific publishers have been relatively slow to react to recent technological changes. We believe that this impression has arisen from a natural wariness because previous technologies with potential relevance to publishing have become redundant, for example the CD-ROM as a publication vehicle. Publishers are now making excellent use of the available technologies that seem to be ‘here to stay’ rather than ‘here today...’.

We believe that the many admirable characteristics of the present scientific journal publishing system can be successfully transferred to potential new models if journals are willing to adapt and are given the chance to do so. Not-for-profit journals and publishers tend to agree with open access advocates that free access to scientific information is a laudable goal, but tend to disagree that wholesale dismantling of the current system is the best way of achieving this. We are certain that much which is good for science and hence the public good would be damaged or lost if a destructive ‘revolutionary’ approach is ruthlessly prosecuted in the name of open access.

In common with other not-for-profit journals and publishers, we believe it is possible to balance the desire for expanded access to scientific information with the ability to support publications, develop new technologies and generate surpluses that not-for-profit publishers can plough back into science itself.

Ultimately, it would be both ironic and tragic if changes in scientific journal publishing resulted in the atrophy of the very learned societies that fostered their early development.

Transparency declarations

D. S. R. is an independent contractor to, and C. W. E. D. is a paid employee of, the BSAC, which owns JAC, and M. H. is a paid employee of OUP.

References

1. Wellcome Trust. Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing. A report commissioned by The Wellcome Trust. 2003. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/assets/wtd003182.pdf (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

2. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Scientific Publications: Free for all? 2004. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399.pdf (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

3. Gooden P, Owen M, Simon S. Scientific Publishing: Knowledge is Power. Morgan Stanley, Equity Research, Europe. 30 September 2002. http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Journals/morganstanley.pdf (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

4. Worlock K. Scoping the STM publishing market. Learned Publishing 2004; 17: 291–8.[ISI]

5. Dyer O. US universities threaten to cancel subscriptions to Elsevier journals. Br Med J 2004; 328: 543. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7439/543 (16 September 2005, date last accessed).[Free Full Text]

6. Major S. US universities review subscriptions to journal "package deal" as costs rise. Br Med J 2004; 328: 68. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/328/7431/68 (16 September 2005, date last accessed).[Free Full Text]

7. TRLN to forgo the Big Deal. Library Journal, 14 January 2004. http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA374375?display=breakingNews (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

8. Public Library of Science. About the PLoS journals. http://www.plos.org/journals/ (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

9. Pepling R. Point–counterpoint: open access. http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/8310/8310openaccess.html (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

10. Wellcome Trust. Wellcome Trust position statement in support of open and unrestricted access to published research. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/doc_WTD002766.html (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

11. Research Councils UK. RCUK position statement on access to research outputs. 2005. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/access/statement.pdf (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

12. American Society for Microbiology. http://journals.asm.org/subscriptions/freefulltext.shtml (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

13. Oxford University Press. http://www.oxfordjournals.org/ (16 September 2005, date last accessed).

14. Aronson JK. Commentary: Open access publishing: too much oxygen? Br Med J 2005; 330: 759. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/reprint/330/7494/759 (16 September 2005, date last accessed).[Free Full Text]

15. National Institutes of Health. Policy on enhancing public access to archived publications resulting from NIH-funded research. http://www.nih.gov/about/publicaccess/Enhanced_Public_Access.pdf (16 September 2005, date last accessed).





This Article
Abstract
FREE Full Text (PDF)
All Versions of this Article:
56/5/799    most recent
dki384v1
Alert me when this article is cited
Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Email this article to a friend
Similar articles in this journal
Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Similar articles in PubMed
Alert me to new issues of the journal
Add to My Personal Archive
Download to citation manager
Disclaimer
Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Articles by Reeves, D. S.
Articles by Hill, M.
PubMed
PubMed Citation
Articles by Reeves, D. S.
Articles by Hill, M.