A Con to Nick's Pro -- Open Access to Scientific Literature

Nick from The Scientific Activist has busted out a salient article from the archives related to the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006. I think he gives a fair treatment to the Act and its implications. As he is giving it a qualified endorsement, I thought I would chime in on the Con side to give a diversity of opinion.

Though I would read his post, I have tried to faithfully summarize his arguments for and against below (if I have been unfair in my summary I hope he or someone else will let me know):

Pro
1) The public pays for the research making it public property that should be accessible for free by the public. In fact, they pay twice -- once to do the research and once to buy the journal.

2) Libraries would benefit significantly and would no longer have to be selective in the journals they carry.

3) Lack of access impedes researchers ability to learn information relevant to their field.

4) It is unfair to deny access to the general public based on the assumption that they are do not understand or are uninterested.

5) Alternative business models exist such as those funding peer review through advertising and author fees. Subscription fees to print journals are declining. Journals can save considerable overhead by giving up print. In order words, the earlier business model is on its way out anyway.

6) Journals are beholden to large pharmaceutical companies at least partially because the companies are their primary large subscribers. Journals also get large revenues from selling reprints of positive drug trials. This represents a conflict of interest that would be eliminated in a flat fees for article system.

Con
1) Open access could reduce the quality or limit the quantity of science publication by destroying the business model of science publishers.

2) We would have to pay for it, and only a tiny part of the population actually reads scientific journals.

I would like to deal with the Pro arguments individually and then add some Con arguments of my own.

The public pays for the research making it public property that should be accessible for free by the public. In fact, they pay twice -- once to do the research and once to buy the journal. Granted that research is entirely or nearly entirely public property, but that does not entitle the public to have it published for free. The publishing process itself is very expensive, and any alternative model that could be devised will require someone to pay for it. Under the present system this cost is paid primarily by the government using the libraries as proxy. If we moved to flat fee for publishing system, the government would still be paying. They would just be using the researchers as proxy (who would have to write it into their grants).

Libraries would benefit significantly and would no longer have to be selective in the journals they carry. I would argue that libraries themselves are already becoming less and less necessary. This going to relate to a solution that I propose later on, but I think that the necessity of carrying vast holding of print journals is rapidly going by the wayside. Frankly I don't remember the last time I even went to a library. The function of the "library" on campus is rapidly accelerating to the Office of Individuals Who Possess Site Licenses.

(3 and 4 I do not dispute.)

Alternative business models exist such as those funding peer review through advertising and author fees. Subscription fees to print journals are declining. Journals can save considerable overhead by giving up print. In order words, the earlier business model is on its way out anyway. Two things related to this point. First, if what I said above related to author fees being paid by the government is true, then we are changing already to a system where the government is still going to pay for publishing -- just via a different proxy. Second, if the market is changing more or less of its own accord, what is the necessity of government intervention. Yes, I recognize that thus far researchers have been unwilling to make their research public at the rate suggested, but if indeed print journal subscriptions are declining then the journals are rapidly coming to a point where they will have no choice other than to adopt a free access model.

Journals are beholden to large pharmaceutical companies at least partially because of they are large subscribers. Journals also get large revenues from selling reprints of positive drug trials. This represents a conflict of interest that would be eliminated in a flat fees for article system. Granted that I don't want scientific journals beholden to large pharmaceutical companies. However, I don't see how journals beholden to large advertisers is much better. Also, I really have thus far seen no strong evidence for a sinister influence of Pharma on publishing. On the whole, I think publishers are so terrified of a falsification occuring in their journal that they wouldn't even consider allowing such influence. The peer review process should take care of it.

With respect to the Con argument, I don't think much could be made for number 2. While I think it is reality to acknowledge it, it represents a cynicism to which I am not prone. However, I would like to briefly talk up the first argument. If we wildly debase the publishers source of income, we risk causing them to limit the articles they publish due to excessive overhead. I don't think that there are any scientists working today that would like to see the rate limiting step in scientific research become the publication process. It doesn't benefit anyone to have scientists struggle to create the research and then have to compete to get it published.

In addition, I don't think it is fair to write off the appeals of the publishers. For the government to say that they should take a publishing infrastructure that they have labored and paid for and make it pro bono is confiscatory. Also, I don't see publishers as corporate thugs (I don't think that Nick does either, but you get the suggestion from this debate that some people do). Most of the people who run journals are scientists or former scientists. They carry deeply about the quality of the research that goes into their journal and see the protection of the bottom line as critical to the maintenance of that quality.

On the whole, I divided between two views of this situation. Partly I think it is going to take care of itself, largely because I think in ten years we aren't going to have libraries. As subscriptions decline and online access becomes the norm, a pay for article publishing model becomes much cheaper and much more reasonable. Partly I think that if the government is going to make the demand of open access, it also must provide funds for researchers to pay for publishing -- to ensure that publishing does not become a hold up in research.

As an alternative to the Act as presently written (I will say that I have not read it so I may be misunderstanding it), why not demand that publishers give you the option of free access. For an additional fee, you buy the rights to public access in 6 months. It would certainly smoothen the transition to a new system and guarantee that publishing is not slowed down in the process.

UPDATE: As you will note from the Comments Nick has responded here. I think he makes a really good point that, rather than limiting publishing, open access could encourage it because it is in the interest of journals to get as many pay-for-publish articles as they can. We'll see what happens with this law. I do think, however, that a wise politician in this case would agree to pay the fees. If the government wants free access, I do think they should foot the bill.