Offside
Limelight

Luís Fernandes, Pedro Carvalho and Luís Guardão

Have your say

"I remember a few years ago a research colleague of mine saying with some indignation that the authors of scientific papers should receive royalties when they transfer copyrights to the publishers. The rationale behind it was simple...", Alípio Jorge

Free Nonsense

"There are features that unite us, both Portuguese and Brazilian, and that are bigger than the language. And those are apparent in our way of being and in the way we live, in the refusal to live regulatory shapes and procedures that castrate the spontaneous.", José Celso Freire Júnior

Gallery of the Uncommon

Seca is kind of a cool guy and he tucked his meal in his comforted stomach, but one thing he brought for sure from the Azores: the certainty that some people are cooler than him...

Jobs 4 the Boys & Girls

In this section, the reader may find reference to public announcements made by INESC Porto offering grants, contracts and other opportunities of the same kind.

Biptoon

More scenes of how life goes merrily on...

 
 

Have your say

Have your say

Open Access – from publish-or-perish to pay-or-no-publish

*By Alípio Jorge

I remember a few years ago a research colleague of mine saying with some indignation that the authors of scientific papers should receive royalties when they transfer copyrights to the publishers. The rationale behind it was simple: if the scientific paper is a business for the publishers, and if they take profit from that business, why isn’t that profit given to those that contribute with the single products that publishers sell? This was a legitimate question placed in a time when the Web still had (and has) a lot of influence on the business models of those who exchange information. Scientific journals, for centuries published in paper (the first journal was published in 1665), are now (ever since the end of the 20th century) widely made available in PDF format via Web. If paper as a physical support made it clear that publishers had costs that had to be covered (material, printing, distribution, etc.), the digital support borrows us the (false) idea that the costs have nearly disappeared. However, curiously, the authors still do not receive part of the financial profits from a journal that publishes their article and they are still frequently asked to pay to see their articles published or at least to have them easily accessible.

Let us look at some examples. Springer sells Open Choice, where an author can pay an amount so that his/her article can be freely accessed (Open Access). Costs thus go from the reader/library to the author or his/her institution. This new business model is also called “flipped model”. Instead of the consumer paying, the one who pays is the one that produces the information. Springer charges 2000 Euros per article. A big amount that buys a more vast dissemination, more quotes, and a larger impact, at least on the short term. Another example, this time a less known publisher, is Hindawi Publishing Corporation (http://www.hindawi.com), a 100% case of “flipped model”. Hindawi publishes mainly electronically since 1997. It publishes more than 200 journals, with more than 20 of them referenced in the ISI. The cost of publication varies between 350 and 1050 Euros apparently according to the impact of the journal.

So, it seems authors weren’t paying enough. For a good reason, they weren’t receiving royalties. But does it make any sense to make the producers of articles the ones responsible for the costs? Is this transfer of costs free of danger? The first time someone told me I would have to pay to publish an article in a journal, I was suspicious. Then, my opinion started changing. I’m still not using that model, but it doesn’t seem foolish to me that if the authors and their institutions are highly interested in seeing their work acknowledged and disseminated, they should pay. If you want to participate in a conference, you have to pay a fee, and that covers the publication costs. But there’s a danger that the publication will not be made possible for those who do not have funds (e.g. developing countries) and so the audience’s confidence in the articles published upon payment of a fee will be mined. The best clients (research institutions with financial power) would have some power with the publishers. Is the article published because it is good or because it is paid? The publish-or-perish thus has new rules and new strategic tools. UC Berkeley, for instance, already has an agreement (paid, naturally) with Springer for every article of UCB authors to be Open Choice.

It is also true that there is a third business model, without business. That is the case of the Journal of Machine Learning Research, born in 2001 as the result of a mass editorial escape from Springer’s Machine Learning Journal. Entirely free for readers and authors and published electronically (MIT Press also sells printed copies now), JMLR is a journal with a large impact (top 20 in Computing Science –http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=406557). However, someone will always have to pay for the effort that is necessary to maintain a quality journal. Otherwise, it will not be sustainable. If the producers and consumers don’t pay for it, the other options are advertisements, patrons (if there are any) or third parties (such as MIT Press). Which one is best?

For more information, see:

Michael Mabe, Scholarly Publishing, European Review, 17, 2009.

Peter Suber, Open Access Overview,(http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm), 2007.

Elsevier comments on possible implications of Open Access journals for the UK (http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/authored_newsitem.cws_home/companynews05_00077)

Springer open choice (http://www.springer.com/open+access/open+choice?SGWID=0-40359-0-0-0)

*Collaborator at the Laboratory of Artificial Intelligence and Decision Support (LIAAD)