The Open Access Interviews: OMICS Publishing Group’s Srinu Babu Gedela

In an article published in The Charleston Advisor in July 2010, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado, Denver, described OMICS Publishing Group as a predatory Open Access publisher. “Having a large number of titles, as does the OMICS Publishing Group, is typical of predatory Open-Access publishers,” he wrote. “Also typical is each journal's broad coverage. By offering 68 titles each with a broad coverage, this publisher is tacitly saying it will publish anything.” 

Srinu Babu Gedela

Is Beall’s characterisation of OMICS fair? Founder and managing director of OMICS Dr Srinu Babu Gedela insists it is not. “We believe the peer review process is very important … I am confident about the quality of the review process used in OMICS’ journals.”

Nevertheless, OMICS has published at least one article that even OMICS itself accepts should never have appeared in a peer-reviewed journal.

There have also been complaints that OMICS clones the names of other publishers’ journals, and on one occasion copied text verbatim from a competitor’s web site. This too Gedela denies. These incidents, he insists, were simply mistakes, and OMICS corrected the situation as soon as the problem was drawn to its attention.

A further complaint is that the publisher has been bombarding researchers with email invitations to join editorial boards, submit papers to its journals (of which there are now 200), and attend conferences. OMICS does not deny that it uses bulk email services. Nor does it plan to stop doing so. Indeed, Gedela implies, these activities are likely to increase in line with the growth of its business. “As we plan to organise 50 conferences in 2012, we will be mailing invitations to researchers frequently.”

OMICS is just one of a growing number of controversial OA publishers: Beall’s list of “predatory” publishers has now reached 28, and continues to grow. But while many researchers are quick to complain about the activities of these publishers, should not the research community accept some responsibility for the current excesses of the OA Gold Rush? 

After all, OMICS says that it has now recruited 20,000 researchers to its editorial boards, and we can assume the other OA publishers are proving equally successful. This suggests that for every researcher decrying the activities of these publishers others are facilitating them. Are the latter not concerned that they are conspiring in the email bombardment of their colleagues? Do they not care that some of the journals on whose editorial boards they sit appear to be publishing papers that have had inadequate or no peer review? Are they not worried that some of these publishers may be engaging in dubious business practices?

So what is the background to the complaints levelled against OMICS Publishing Group, what are the details of those complaints, and how exactly does the company respond to them? Read the attached PDF file to find out ...

####

If you wish to read the rest of this introduction, and the interview with Srinu Babu Gedela, please click on the relevant link below. 

I am publishing the interview under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose. 

To read the interview (as a PDF file) click HERE.

PLEASE NOTE: Normally when I publish an interview I place the introduction before the interview. On the grounds that my introduction for this interview is longer than the interview itself, Srinu Babu Gedela requested that I publish the introduction after the interview, rather than before it. As a compromise solution, I have produced two versions of the text, one with the introduction at the end, and one with the introduction at the beginning. Readers can therefore choose which version they want to read. The link above goes to the version with the introduction before the interview. Those preferring the version with the introduction after the interview can access it here.

Read More

Interview with Nicola Rylett: InTech's response

Yesterday I posted an interview with Nicola Rylett, the marketing director of Open Access publisher InTech. I prefaced the interview with an introduction in order to give readers some background to the publisher. I now publish a statement and response from InTech to that introduction. 

Underneath that is my response to InTech’s statement. 

InTech Statement:

In the piece, “The OA Interviews: InTech's Nicola Rylett”, there were a number of valid issues discussed in great detail. However, despite a series of lengthy conversations which sought to not only address these historical issues but also to highlight the significant changes that InTech have implemented in recent months to eradicate said concerns, the author remains almost entirely focused on cases dating back as far as 2006. This, in our view, is an unfair representation of where the company currently stands, and this failure to shed light on more recent events with a balanced perspective may invariably lead the reader to a misinformed conclusion about InTech. We ask that readers persist with reading this comprehensive article which concludes with the full interview that Nicola Rylett, marketing director participated in with Mr Poynder – here is where the balance of the article is redressed, although it is questionable whether the reader will continue reading by the time they reach Page 17 of the piece.

The interview between Ms Rylett and Mr Poynder raised a number of important, pertinent and extremely interesting points that were not only relevant to InTech but also to the wider publishing- and- open access communities. The subject of peer review remains a hot potato among industry commentators, with advocates and critics seemingly at loggerheads over the extent to which it is enforced combined with its ability (or inability) to remain be the “quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller” (Richard Horton, editor, The Lancet) and impartial, rather than err on the side of bias.

Finally, quality is another issue that needs to be addressed. While InTech has initiated a process of quality review within the organization in recent months, we believe the issue of quality per se is one that should be debated across the whole sector in the same manner that we need to openly deliberate how we can help increase the pace of transferrable knowledge in research globally, introduce innovative ways to meet and exceed customer requirements and expectations, and how we can maintain sustainability throughout the publishing community. 

Article response, comments addressed as follows:

The statement, “Meanwhile it appears that no researcher ever received any royalties from the publisher,” is an assumption made by the author and our non-response should not be taken as an indication of confirmation nor denial. This remains a confidential matter between author and publisher.

Value for money is mentioned throughout the piece and at this point, we would like to highlight the significant differences between the article processing charges (APC) among our contemporaries. PloS, for instance, levy a c.2,086EUR APC, Biomed charge a fee of c.1,610EUR, while InTech's APC is among the lowest in the industry, between 590EUR for Books and 870EUR for Journals. It is also important to stipulate, as readers of the full interview will note, that there are variations with regard to the overall service provided for authors under the APC.

The statement, “I asked Rylett to put me in touch with four or five authors who had been granted a waiver, which she agreed to do. At the time of writing this, however, I had still not been sent any names”, is accurate. However, due to data protection protocol we can only forward author contact details upon receipt of their confirmation that they are willing to allow us to do so. We have sought permission from authors and will duly forward their information to Mr Poynder, as requested.

The statement, “Would not one expect the paragraph breaks to either be indented or double-spaced?” We have introduced paragraph indenting along with a number of other changes to the overall layout of our books which have already taken immediate effect, which will be evident upon publication of titles published within the forthcoming twelve months.

The statement, “And here is a front page of a book published in 2006,” followed by the statement, “We might also want to ask why, given the undeniable difference in quality, an author would opt to pay to publish with InTech rather than publish without charge with a traditional publisher,” seeks to convey to the reader that the company has failed to address previous discrepancies since their airing of said example some five years ago. This argument, in our view, has little conviction and it would be remiss of anyone to judge a company as it is in 2011 based on a solitary example dating back to 2006.

The statement, “What I do know is that InTech's critics have long maintained that it has a tendency to promise more than it delivers...the publisher is prone to exaggerate its achievements [and] are now inclined to conclude that InTech has succumbed to the same temptation in publishing and citing the new TBI survey,” is the author's own opinion and not representative of the wider community. In our interview, both Rylett and TBI demonstrated the results of the survey in an open and transparent way and it should be noted that Mr Poynder has continued to refute its findings, which is his prerogative.

The statement, “In other words, researchers based in the developing world who know they will be rejected out of hand by the traditional scholarly communication system, either because of where they are based, the quality of their written English, or both”, is the authors own opinion and should not be taken or accepted as a statement of fact. China and others members of the so-called BRIC nations and other countries have been largely unrepresented in the scientific publishing community, and InTech has enabled prospective authors who would ordinarily be excluded from doing so to have their work published and freely accessible. Language should not and will never be a barrier to becoming published with InTech - providing the quality is of the standard that we deem as acceptable. Indeed, it should be noted that like most of our contemporaries within the wider publishing community, we reject a significant number of proposals that we are presented with due to their failure to meet the required standards.

The statement, “Clearly one error InTech could make is to assume that it is enough to unleash on the world a plethora of upbeat PR messages and self-serving surveys, but omit to undertake the hard work necessary to improve its products, and to make the way it markets its services to scientists more acceptable,” is 100 per cent true in so much that if this is the approach we were to take then yes, that will invariably be the consequences of the company's inaction. However, that is not the stance we are adopting. Moreover, as the interview below will testify, we have already made significant strides in recent months to review all areas of the way we do business (focus on quality, customer services, external communications, etc.) and reacted accordingly which will effectively dispel much of the criticism levied against InTech by critics once the seeds we have sown now come to fruition over the course of the next twelve months.

The statement, “...it is not clear that InTech plans to cease bombarding researchers with unwanted email invitations”, is a gross exaggeration. Anyone with a basic understanding of marketing could never accuse an organization which sends fewer than 5 emails over a given twelve month period of 'bombarding' the recipient.

The statement, “Today, [InTech] describes itself – unfairly – as “the world's largest open access book publisher”, is factual and not an attempt at self-aggrandizement. While there are a number of other open access players within our market, their focus is overwhelmingly focused on the publication of journals, with InTech operating predominately in books.

The concluding statement, “The problem may be that the particular niche InTech has created for itself, and the modus operandi it has built around that niche, may make it very hard to up its game without eroding its customer base”, is an unfair statement and we refute the implication from the author which suggests that the quality of both our authors and publications is sub-standard.

####

Comment from Richard Poynder:

I appreciate that InTech took the time to speak with me in the first place, and to subsequently respond to my introduction. Below I address those issues raised by InTech where I believe a response is called for.

WIDER ISSUES

I agree that some of the issues I raised in connection with InTech could usefully be viewed in the context of the wider problems associated with the quality of published research today, peer review, and author-pays open access publishing; and I agree that there ought to be an industry-wide debate about this. Perhaps that is something that OASPA could organise?

I disagree that my introduction was “almost entirely focused on cases dating back as far as 2006”. For instance, I drew attention to quality issues connected with recently published books, including at least two published this month (e.g. this one, and this one). Likewise, I drew attention to peer review issues associated with a book published last year (this book), and I also cited InTech’s own survey (published in April) in which respondents repeated the same complaints made to me in 2010, and which have been made historically about InTech. E.g. complaints that journal articles and book chapters published with InTech appear sometimes either be reviewed too lightly, or not reviewed at all. As one of those cited in the TBI survey put it, “If there would be a review process, the writing process would be more natural and the chapter could be improved.”

ROYALTIES

 

I can think of no publisher that would refuse to say whether they have ever, or do now, pay royalties to their authors. And why would they refuse? I invite InTech/Sciyo once again to answer the question I posed in the interview: Has it ever paid royalties to any of its authors and, if so, how much has it paid out since 2010 (without naming any authors, or breaching any client confidentiality)?

VALUE FOR MONEY

I agree that some Open Access publishers charge a higher APC than InTech. In light of the issues raised, however, some might argue that there is a danger here of trying to compare apples with oranges. It also assumes that the other OA publishers cited themselves provide value for money, which again some might question. As such, citing what other publishers charge may be to miss the point. The issue is this: what do authors get for their APC when they publish with InTech, and does that represent value for money; it is not a case of making price comparisons with other publishers.  

THE TBI SURVEY

InTech says, “Rylett and TBI demonstrated the results of the survey in an open and transparent way and it should be noted that Mr Poynder has continued to refute its findings, which is his prerogative.”

I do not think it is accurate to say that I refuted the findings of the TBI survey. I aired the concerns of some OA advocates about the wider relevance of the survey, the way in which the results had been put into the public domain, and the selective way in which the data had been presented. Since I did not get answers to all my questions, I invite InTech again to address these ones:

·         Why did not the TBI survey state that only 5,000 of the 8,000 respondents to a survey that had polled 25,000 researchers answered the section on InTech?

·         Can the online survey that was used be made public?

RESEARCHERS FROM THE DEVELOPING WORLD

InTech says, “China and others members of the so-called BRIC nations and other countries have been largely unrepresented in the scientific publishing community, and InTech has enabled prospective authors who would ordinarily be excluded from doing so to have their work published and freely accessible.” That is exactly the point I made. As I put it, “[O]ne could argue that InTech is providing a valuable service for those who are currently excluded from mainstream science.”

REJECTION RATES

InTech says, “[W]e reject a significant number of proposals that we are presented with due to their failure to meet the required standards.” I invite InTech to publish the figures on its rejection rates — for book proposals, chapter proposals and journal articles.

SPAM

It seems to me that there are two important issues to consider with regard to email marketing. First, the number of messages sent out and the randomness or not of the targeting. Second, the purpose of the messages and whether or not the recipients have opted-in to receiving them.  As I understand it from InTech’s FAQ, the publisher continues to trawl public databases for details of researchers, and then despatches multiple marketing emails inviting them to buy a service from InTech. It is not clear to me that all the recipients of InTech’s messages have opted-in to receiving them. It also seems that many of them will not be existing customers of InTech. If that is not correct, perhaps InTech could clarify?

If it is correct, then I think it would be fair to say that InTech is sending out unsolicited commercial email, and in many legal jurisdictions this is subject to regulation. I don’t know what the current law on spam is in Croatia, but I believe the country is expected to join the European Union in 2013. It is my understanding that Article 13 of the EU Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications regulates the use of email addresses for marketing purposes, and it established an opt-in regime. As such, I am told, unsolicited emails can only be sent with the prior agreement of the recipient.

But I am not a lawyer, and I am sure that InTech has taken legal advice on this. It might, however, be helpful if the publisher could confirm that its email marketing activities are conformant with Croatian law, and that they will be conformant with European law?

WORLD’S LARGEST OPEN ACCESS BOOK PUBLISHER

My comment regarding InTech “unfairly” calling itself the world's largest open access book publisher was in fact a typo! It should have read “Today, [InTech] describes itself — not unfairly — as the world's largest open access book publisher”. I will correct that in the PDF.

I assume that InTech’s main competitor in this field is Bentham eBooks?

The introduction and interview can be accessed here (PDF file).

Read More

The OA Interviews: InTech’s Nicola Rylett

The history of Open Access (OA) publisher InTech is a complicated and somewhat confusing one. According to a Scribd presentation, the company was founded in Vienna in 2004. Over the subsequent seven years it has undergone a series of name changes, moved country, and attracted considerable criticism, both for the quality of its peer review and the way in which it markets its services. The company appears to inhabit a strange binary world: while some accuse it of repeatedly spamming researchers, and preying on the vulnerabilities and egos of researchers in order to make money, the company itself maintains that it is a victim of misinformation and misperception, and that it has a growing and happy customer base. As evidence of the latter, it cites a survey that it commissioned earlier this year. 81% of those responding to the survey, says InTech’s new marketing director Nicola Rylett, rated their publishing experience with the company as either 'excellent' or 'good'.

What do we make of these conflicting pictures of InTech? The quality of peer review can be difficult to assess. Nevertheless, the publisher has acknowledged problems with its peer review in the past, and when I drew Rylett’s attention to a chapter in one of its recently published books she agreed that the quality was “unacceptable”. It also seems fair to conclude that the company’s marketing techniques leave a lot to be desired. However, Rylett insists that InTech is addressing these issues. To that end, she explains, it is currently recruiting a new middle and senior management team.

It seems clear that InTech has proved very successful in selling its pay-to-publish services to thousands of researchers around the world. But can it persuade the wider research community, the scholarly publishing industry, and the Open Access movement to endorse it?

Nicola Rylett

InTech first came to my attention in 2007, when researchers began to raise questions about a Vienna-based company called I-Tech Education and Publishing which, they complained, was sending out unsolicited emails inviting scientists to contribute chapters to books — for which a 380Euros publication charge was being demanded. Many appeared to be concluding that the company was engaged in either mass spamming, or scamming, or possibly both.

At the time, I contacted the CEO of the company Vedran Kordic, who posted a response to the American Scientist Open Access Forum. “[M]ore than 1,500 authors published to date in the open access mode by us,” he said. “There is no one of them thinking that this is a kind of online cheat or that we are working on pay-publish mode.”

Over the next couple of years the complaints appeared only to grow, and by now researchers were posting their grievances on blogs as well as mailing lists. At some point the company changed its name to In-Tech. It also began to launch scholarly journals.

In November 2009 the company changed its name again — to Sciyo. It also created a second web site that appeared to be running in parallel to In-Tech’s site (intechweb.org). And shortly afterwards it announced that anyone publishing a book chapter with the company would receive royalties. These would be based on the number of times an author’s work was downloaded.

An OA publisher paying royalties was a novel idea; an idea, however, greeted with some scepticism. Nevertheless, it stimulated me to contact the company again — an enquiry that led to my doing an email interview with Aleksandar Lazinica, who introduced himself to me as the CEO of Sciyo ...

####

If you wish to read the rest of this introduction and the interview with Nicola Rylett please click on the link below. 

I am publishing it under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose. 

To read the interview and introduction (as a PDF file) click here.

IN-TECH HAS ISSUED A STATEMENT AND A RESPONSE TO THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS INTERVIEW. IT CAN BE READ IN THE PDF FILE LINKED ABOVE, OR ALTERNATIVELY HERE. 

Read More

Interview with BioOne’s Mark Kurtz

Historically, peer-reviewed journals were published by scientific societies on a non-profit basis. Today scholarly publishing is dominated by a handful of large commercial publishers focused on maximising their profits. This has left small society publishers struggling to survive and libraries unable to afford all the journals they need. Unable to compete with commercial publishers, many societies have given up and sold or outsourced their publishing activities to them—a decision that inevitably leads to a rise in the price of their journals.

Some, however, have sought survival by banding together and creating online collections of their combined journal portfolios. This is the objective of the Learned Journals Collection; and it is the aim of BioOne, which currently provides online access to 167 titles from 126 different non-profit bioscience publishers. I spoke recently with BioOne’s director of business development Mark Kurtz. The conversation was a further reminder for me that while the Open Access (OA) movement now looks set to solve the access problem, it is far from clear that it will solve the more fundamental affordability problem confronting the research community.

 Background

Writing in D-Lib magazine in 2000 Rick Johnson—then enterprise director for The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC)—pointed out that until the end of World War II scholarly publishing had operated somewhat like a gift economy. As he put it, “For nearly 300 years—since 1665, when the Royal Society of London published the first modern journal, Philosophical Transactions—societies satisfied the need for scholars to communicate among themselves and so maintained their role as the principal scholarly publishers. Research articles were ‘gifted’ to societies by authors and returned to the community in low-cost journals.”

Following the explosion in research funding after the war, however, societies increasingly struggled to cope with the ensuing flood of papers. Spotting a market opportunity, commercial companies quickly filled the vacuum. In doing so, these profit-hungry corporations quickly realised that the demand for scholarly journals is remarkably inelastic. So they did the rational thing, said Johnson, “they raised institutional prices of journals dramatically and relentlessly to exploit the elasticity curve.”

Given this inelasticity, Johnson added, the traditional “circle of gifts” between scholars and their society was replaced not with a real market economy, but a “dysfunctional hybrid.”

Unsurprisingly, the new entrants were soon engaged in an orgy of acquisitions and consolidation—aided by the alacrity with which some societies rushed to outsource their publishing activities to them when they saw how easy it is to generate large sums of money from scholarly journals if your goal is to maximise revenues rather than simply communicate research. By collaborating with commercial companies, these societies realised, they could not only ensure their own survival, but also make a healthy surplus that would allow them to subsidise their other activities.

As a result, today a few large commercial companies own thousands of journals apiece, and are generally able to set their own price.

Serials crisis

Thus was born the serials crisis, which has had the research community in its grip now for several decades. Unable to keep up with the constant increase in subscription prices, libraries began to cancel journals. Publishers responded by increasing their prices further, hoping to make up the lost revenue. This simply triggered further cancellations, and each time the price of a journal was increased a few more libraries cancelled their subscription. It was a vicious cycle that seemed likely to destroy the scholarly communication system.

Determined to staunch the bleeding, publishers came up with a new strategy: they put all their journals online and invited libraries to buy their entire journal portfolio on an all-or-nothing, multi-year basis—a business model that came to be known as the Big Deal.

Why, given their straitened circumstances, would libraries agree to buy even more journals? Why, moreover, would they agree to lock themselves into multi-year contracts? Because if they did so publishers promised them access to a much greater number of electronic journals than they had had print subscriptions to—for the same price.

At first, everyone seemed happy with the Big Deal. When the contracts came up for renewal, however, libraries were confronted with a stark choice: Pay the publisher’s new asking price (inevitably higher) and renew the contract; or go back to buying on a title-by-title basis and face the painful task of telling faculty that they were about to lose access to many of the journals they needed to keep up with developments in their discipline. In the circumstances, most librarians opted to renew the Big Deals.
Soon the Big Deals were devouring most of a library’s budget, forcing it again to start cancelling journals. This time, however, it was the journals of those publishers who did not offer their own Big Deal that were targeted—these were invariably the journals of smaller publishers, and usually those of society publishers.

As a result, more and more societies decided that, if they wanted to survive, they had no option but to fall into the arms of a commercial publisher. This further distorted the market, putting those societies that remained independent under great pressure to partner up too.

Meanwhile, the on-going struggle to pay for journals meant that libraries faced a mounting affordability problem; and as libraries cancelled more and more titles, so researchers were confronted with a growing access problem.

SPARC

Unsurprisingly, libraries began to search around for solutions to these twin problems. In 1998, for instance, a group of libraries founded SPARC—to “correct imbalances in the scholarly publishing system”. And Rick Johnson was recruited as executive director of the new organisation.

Several new initiatives were launched as a result, including SPARC Leading Edge, SPARC Alternative and SPARC Scientific Communities. It was from the latter that BioOne emerged, conceived as an “aggregation of the full-texts of high-impact bioscience research journals.”

####

If you wish to read the interview with Mark Kurtz please click on the link below. 

I am publishing it under a Creative Commons licence, so you are free to copy and distribute it as you wish, so long as you credit me as the author, do not alter or transform the text, and do not use it for any commercial purpose. 

To read the interview (as a PDF file) click here.

Read More

The Big Deal: Not Price But Cost

The September issue of Information Today has published an article I have written on the Big Deal.

The article is available in full here. Below are a few extracts from it: 

What is the issue?

First introduced by Academic Press (AP) in 1996, the Big Deal—in which publishers sell online subscriptions to large bundles of electronic journals—is now the principal means by which academics access research literature.

When it was introduced, the Big Deal was widely seen as a solution to the so-called serials crisis, and both publishers and librarians embraced it enthusiastically.

However, the Big Deal today is the biggest bugbear for librarians and currently the focus of a face-off between U.K. librarians and publishers.

How did an initiative that was once viewed so positively become an object of dislike and derision? What is the solution? 

What is the Big Deal?

A Big Deal “may consist of hundreds of titles—often the publisher’s entire journals’ list—sold in a bundled package to a consortium of libraries on a one-price, one-size-fits-all basis,” according to Ingenta’s Mark Rowse in 2002.

In other words, research libraries combine to buy a single all-you-can eat subscription for a set fee and for a set number of years (usually 3). This fee is invariably based on the cost of the member institutions’ historical print subscriptions.

As Rowse explained, “A publisher might supply a whole list for the price of the sum of the original print subscriptions of a library consortium, with an electronic premium added, generally in the range of between 5 and 15 percent.”

In addition, a built-in percentage increase of around 6% per annum became standard. 

What was the Big Deal’s attraction?

For libraries, the perceived benefit of the Big Deal was “access to a greater number of journal titles and a stronger negotiating position through the purchase of a greater volume of content by large consortia,” says Fred Friend, honorary director scholarly communication at University College London. 

Why has the Big Deal become librarians’ greatest bête noire 15 years after its introduction?

Ivy Anderson, director of collections at California Digital Library points to three issues, concerns that only actually became apparent over time. These she characterizes as budgetary concerns, policy concerns, and systemic concerns. 

What is the nub of the problem?

[L]ibrarians have never denied that the Big Deal increases usage and lowers per-article costs. Says Anderson, “It has to be acknowledged that the large publisher journal licenses have expanded access and lowered the unit cost of much journal content relative to what the cost of those journals might have been without those deals, particularly when publishers have been willing to cap price increases in exchange for multi-year revenue guarantees.”

However, she points out that the problem is that lower per-unit costs do little to help librarians grapple with the more fundamental affordability problem confronting them.

To understand this problem, Anderson wrote on the liblicense mailing list earlier this year one has simply to juxtapose two well-known charts, “one from ARL documenting the long decline in the proportion of research university funding allocated towards libraries, and another reproduced by STM documenting the equally steady increase in journal publication over time. These trends have long been on a collision course.”

The relative decline of library budgets

What is the publisher’s perspective?

For their part, publishers rightly point out that if the scholarly publishing system is to continue functioning (in its current form at least), they have to be paid for the services they provide. Speaking to me last year, Derk Haank pointed out that journals are currently growing in volume by 6% to 7% per year. As a consequence, he said prices must inevitably go up.

“We have been doing all that is possible over the last couple of years, and will continue to do so to ensure that our price increases are lower than the volume increases. But not increasing our prices is not an option in the long term,” he said.

One can argue about the level of profits publishers ought to be making from the public purse, but Haank’s general point is hard to gainsay.

He added, “I agree that there was once a serial pricing problem. I have never denied there was a problem. But it was the Big Deal that solved it.” For that reason, he suggested, “The Big Deal is the best invention since sliced bread.”

[Haank also said]:“Librarians need to accept that if they want access to a continually growing database, then costs will need to go up a little bit … We try to accommodate our customers, but at a certain point, we will hit a wall.” 

UK librarians confront publishers

But librarians can hit walls too and ... some already have. Many are simply no longer able to pay publishers’ asking prices. And nowhere is this discontent more evident right now than in the U.K., where the Big Deal first saw the light of day.

Frustrated by the insupportable cost of the Big Deals and angry at what they see as publisher recalcitrance, U.K. librarians have decided that enough is enough.

Two years ago, Research Libraries UK (RLUK), which represents the so-called Russell Group of universities, and whose membership consists of 30 major institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge, and Manchester universities, Imperial College, the London School of Economics, and The British Library, made a decision. With its Big Deal contracts with both Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell due for renewal in January 2012, RLUK instructed JISC Collections (which acts on its behalf in content licensing matters) to take a firm line in renewal negotiations.

Specifically, RLUK is insisting that in future its member institutions are billed in sterling rather than euros, that the bills are staged rather demanded upfront and—most striking of all—that prices are rolled back to where they were in 2007 (with an allowance for RPI).

In practice, says Deborah Shorley, director of library services at London University’s Imperial College (who is chair of the RLUK group leading the revolt), this would effectively amount to a 15% reduction in current prices. 

What can RLUK’s strategy achieve?

RLUK’s strategy would appear to be the biggest challenge to the status quo for 15 years. But is it a potential game-changer?

Let’s put the question another way: If it succeeds in its objective, what will RLUK have achieved? If the fundamental problem faced by the research community is long-term affordability then how can a temporary price reduction resolve the deeper problem? After all, prices will doubtless creep back up again. And librarians will still be handcuffed to an inflexible system.

It is striking that most discussion about the Big Deal too often fails to examine the underlying questions raised by the serials crisis. Questions such as: Can the research community still afford the scholarly communication system it has inherited, or has the cost become too great?

And even if the traditional system is still theoretically affordable, could it be that those who ultimately pay for it (universities, research funders, governments, and ultimately taxpayers) are no longer willing to foot the bill as the costs go higher and higher?

The signs are that the answer to both questions is no. If that is right, then RLUK’s strategy can surely only provide short-term relief. Is there no way out of the impasse? 

A possible answer is mooted in the full 9,000-word article, which is freely available here.

Read More

The Open Access Interviews: Wellcome Trust’s Robert Kiley

Over the past year Open Access (OA) publishing has gained considerable mindshare, not just amongst researchers and librarians, but publishers too. This has been helped greatly by the perceived success of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) — which in 2010 managed to cover its operating costs with revenue for the first time. But as it becomes increasingly likely that OA publishing will prove no less expensive than traditional subscription publishing, a couple of key questions arise: How much will Gold OA eventually cost? And how will the research community pay for it? I explored these questions recently with Robert Kiley, Head of Digital Services at the UK-based Wellcome Trust, one of the world's largest medical research charities.

The consensus is that viability for PLoS was eventually achieved thanks to PLoS ONE and the “light” peer review model that it has pioneered. Indeed PLoS ONE is widely described as a “cash cow”, since it is believed to be subsidising not just the publisher’s flagship journals but practically the entire PLoS enterprise. For this reason, no doubt, traditional publishers are currently rushing to create clones of what PLoS itself describes as the first of a new breed of megajournals.

Amongst those to announce PLoS ONE look-alikes in recent months are the American Institute of Physics (AIP Advances), Nature Publishing Group (Scientific Reports), the Company of Biologists (Biology Open) and Sage (Sage Open).

In addition, practically all subscription publishers now offer a Hybrid OA option. This allows researchers to have their papers made freely available on the Web even when they publish in a subscription journal — if they agree to pay an article processing charge (APC). Designed by publishers as a way to offer OA without loss of revenue, Hybrid OA is invariable charged at premium rates — which range from between $3,000 to $5,000 per paper.

In short, despite their initial rejection (not to say repugnance) of OA, publishers now view it as a lucrative new revenue stream to have opened up in the scholarly publishing space. Indeed, they appear to fear that unless they move quickly they may lose out in what some have characterised as a “gold rush”.

This new attitude was articulated on the Liblicense mailing list recently by publishing consultant Joe Esposito, who assured list members “OA can grow and commercial publishers can become even more profitable, in part by co-opting OA publishing.”

Dilemma

In the meantime, however, many in the research community have resigned themselves to the fact that OA publishing may never provide the cost savings that it was expected to deliver. As former director of Penn State University Press Sandy Thatcher put it recently on Liblicense, “[W]ith the gold OA model, you are entirely at the mercy of publishers, who will charge what they need to make their preferred profit margin and will not be any more transparent than they are now about their actual costs. End users will benefit, but will the costs to the system be any less?”

If costs do not fall the research community faces a dilemma, since it was widely assumed that OA would provide a solution to the long-standing serials crisis — the phenomenon whereby library budgets have consistently failed to keep pace with the rise in the cost of journal subscriptions (effectively it is libraries that pay for scholarly publishing).

To add to the challenge, in the short term OA can only increase costs, because during the transition research institutions are having to continue to pay subscriptions while also paying for OA membership schemes. The latter are subscription-like deals offered by OA publishers like PLoS, BioMed Central (BMC) and Hindawi to enable research institutions to block purchase free-at-the-point-of-use publication rights so that faculty members can make their papers Open Access without being billed personally. These too are usually funded from library budgets.

In addition, many universities have created Gold OA funds so that one-off grants can be awarded to researchers wanting to publish in OA journals for which the institution has no membership agreement.

To cap it all, these additional costs come at a time when the global financial crisis is squeezing university budgets to death. Rather than being able to provide additional funds, most universities are beginning to find that they need to take an axe to their journal subscriptions.

In its 2010 Study of Subscription Prices for Scholarly Society Journals, for instance, Allen Press published a list of universities that made “significant institutional subscription cancellations” last year. This included Georgia Tech, the University of California, San Francisco, Oregon State University, and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

And this July The Chronicle of Higher Education reported that the University of Oregon and Southern Illinois University even felt compelled to cancel a number of “big deals”, which can mean depriving researchers of access to thousands of journals in one fell swoop.

Meanwhile on the other side of the Atlantic, Research Libraries UK (RLUK) has informed both Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell that unless they agree to a 15% reduction in prices it will not renew its Big Deal contracts with them next year. This is serious: RLUK represents the so-called Russell Group of universities, whose membership consists of thirty major institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge and Manchester universities, Imperial College, the London School of Economics, and the British Library.

Safety net

In this kind of environment how can universities avoid eventually having to cancel their institutional membership schemes too — as in fact Columbia University did in 2009? And how long can they avoid having to close their Gold OA funds — as the University of Amsterdam did the same year.

In fact, Gold OA funds today tend to be more nominal than real. Having realised that demand could quickly outstrip available resources if OA took off, universities have in recent years started to impose rigorous eligibility rules on authors asking for assistance. When the Compact for Open-Access Publishing Equity (COPE) was founded in 2009, its stated policy made this explicit.

As the Director of the Office for Scholarly Communication at Harvard University Stuart Shieber explained at the time, “By design, the overall cost to a university of implementing the compact, in the short term, would be quite small. Hybrid open-access fees are explicitly eschewed, and true open-access fees tend to be found at present in just those areas of scholarship where grant support is most prevalent, reducing the underwriting load on the university substantially. Rough estimates based on the experience of the Berkeley Research Impact Initiative fall in the range of tens of dollars per faculty member per year.”

A year later Shieber was pleased to be able to report that, in practice, Gold OA funds are providing even less support than he had envisaged. Harvard’s own HOPE Fund, for instance, has to this day paid for only three OA papers.

In other words, the policy of many Gold OA funds is that if there is any alternative source of funding, and/or if the proposed journal does not meet a very strict set of criteria, no money will be made available. As Shieber points out, these funds should be viewed as “safety nets” alone. “Safety nets are useful even when they are not used.”

If institutions now start to cancel their OA membership schemes (which some believe provide pretty poor value anyway), the question inevitably arises: in light of the continuing financial squeeze, who on earth is going to pay for the “dramatic growth of Open Access” — as some characterise it?

An answer to this question is all the more pressing given that the fee waivers currently offered by many OA publishers could be under threat. With commercial publishers like Nature Publishing Group (NPG) entering the no-frills market created by PLoS ONE, it is anticipated that the waiver schemes could become rare, or even disappear altogether — a point made by Phil Davis on The Scholarly Kitchen blog earlier this year.

Dissemination costs are research costs

So who will pay for Gold OA? Shieber hinted at one alternative funding source in 2009: research funders. In his mind, no doubt, was the example of the Wellcome Trust, which in 2005 — when it announced its OA policy — stated that it believed “dissemination costs are research costs”. As a consequence, it said, in future it would foot the bill for any grantee who wanted to publish in an OA journal.

This decision cost Wellcome £622,000 ($1m) in 2005/6, and the bill has grown steadily over time. Last year the Trust forked out just over £3 million ($4.9m). And if and when OA publishing becomes the norm the cost could rise to £7.3 million ($12m) per annum, which represents around 1.25% of Wellcome’s current research spend.

Wellcome’s decision is good news for any of its funded researchers who want to embrace OA. Some, however, believe that it put the nail in the coffin of hopes that OA would reduce the cost of scholarly publishing. Unlike the funds created by COPE members, for instance, Wellcome is happy to pay for papers to be published in Hybrid OA journals — which, as noted earlier, charge premium rates.

With one of the world's largest medical research charities prepared to pay their asking price, critics complain, publishers have naturally come to assume that they can charge whatever they want for OA products — much as they have always done for journal subscriptions. As a result, critics add, the serials crisis will simply morph into a different kind of pricing impasse.

Others, however, argue that overpricing may not actually be possible in the current economic environment — as the stand taken by RLUK might seem to imply. Most research, they point out, is funded not by private charities like Wellcome, but by governments — and the current sovereign debt crisis afflicting the Western world has made money so tight that it just won’t be feasible to pay publishers the rates they want.

In fact, private funders are no less susceptible than governments to the financial turbulence we have witnessed in recent years. In 2008, for instance, the London Times reported that the Wellcome Trust had lost £1.5 billion ($2.4 billion) after some of its investments had turned sour the preceding year. This saw the Trust’s investments after debt shrink from £15.1billion to £13.1billion.

As a result, the amount of money Wellcome has available to fund research has fallen by £95m since 2007. And the continuing panics still sweeping through markets suggest that the situation is likely to get worse before it improves.

All in all, it is not at all clear today how Gold OA will be paid for going forward, or how OA publishing will develop.

Intriguingly, two months ago the Wellcome Trust announced that — together with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) and the Max Planck Society — it plans to launch a new OA journal. Even more intriguingly, the three partners stated that no APCs will be levied “for a number of years”.

This will inevitably further reduce the amount of money that the Trust has available for funding research projects. But what does it portend?

Confident

With these thoughts in mind I recently emailed some questions over to Wellcome’s Robert Kiley.

As will be evident from the Q&A below, Kiley remains confident that Wellcome’s decision to pay for Gold OA was the right thing to do, and he does not believe it will have a significant impact on the amount of money Wellcome is able to make available to fund research.

He rightly points out that — compared to the shifts in value that the ups and downs of the market can inflict on the Trust's resources — the $12m that it may have to spend on Gold OA is small beer. Moreover, Kiley adds, that figure “assumes we pick up 100% of the OA costs.” Since most research is funded by more than one organisation, he explains, it is safe to assume that the other organisations funding the research will share any publication costs.

And while declining to say how much money Wellcome is investing in the new OA journal, Kiley insists that the percentage of its funds devoted to research dissemination (rather than research itself) will rise only “slightly” as a result.

Finally, Kiley expresses himself confident that OA publishing will prove cheaper than subscription publishing, particularly in light of the current wave of PLoS ONE-clones being launched. These, he points out, levy lower APCs than both Hybrid and pure OA journals (i.e. between $1,350 and $1,980).

This assumes, of course, that a sufficient number of Wellcome-funded researchers will be content to publish in less prestigious no-frills journals like PLoS ONE.

But given the straitened circumstances that the research community finds itself in today, perhaps the more important point is that if PLoS ONE’s prices are such that they can subsidise the larger PLoS enterprise (and spark a me-to “gold rush” as a result), then we must assume that publishers still believe they can ask the research community to pay premium prices, even when selling entry-level products that provide only a minimal service (PLoS ONE articles are not copyedited for instance).

The research community might justifiably wonder why publishers appear to be the only stakeholders that do not believe they have to tighten their belts.

Wellcome’s plans to introduce a new OA journal do, however, suggest an intriguing possibility: Although the three partners have certainly not said as much (in fact they have given a number of not entirely convincing reasons), it is tempting to speculate that the unspoken motivation for launching the journal could be a realisation that, in the age of the Internet, professional publishers have become an unnecessary and expensive luxury.

We could note, for instance, that the project’s FAQ states, “Online open access journals such as the PLoS titles and 'Nature Scientific Reports' are a step in the right direction. Our open access journal will also incorporate online technology to allow for an engaging, interactive experience, but will be staffed by experienced, active scientists and will use a faster, more transparent peer review system.”

Below I publish the email Q&A I had with Robert Kiley.


Robert Kiley 

RP: I believe the research funded by The Wellcome Trust generates around 5,000 papers a year. Is that right? 

RK: Yes it is. 

RP: In 2005 the Trust introduced an OA mandate that requires all its funded researchers to either self-archive their final peer-reviewed manuscript in the UKPMC repository within six months of publication, or to publish them in Gold or Hybrid journals. To help them do the latter the Trust agreed to pay any OA charges incurred. 

RK: Correct. 

RP: I am told that Wellcome’s contribution to Gold OA costs consists primarily of block grants that it makes to around 30 large institutions. Other Wellcome-funded researchers have to apply to the Trust to have their grants supplemented on a case-by-case basis. Are the block grants based on an estimate of the number of papers that Wellcome grantees at those individual institutions are likely to generate, or is there a one-for-one relationship? 

RK: The block grants are based on an estimate of the number of papers that will arise from Wellcome-funded researchers at a particular institution. 

RP: Do the beneficiaries of the block grants supply Wellcome with statistics showing exactly how that block grant has been used? 

RK: At the end of each year, each institution supplies the Trust with a spread sheet showing what they actually spent on OA publication costs.

As with any grant, the institution can only claim against the grant commitment for money it has actually spent. I.e. this explains why the commitment funding levels are often higher than the actual funding spend.

Regrettable? 

RP: As I understand it, the costs arising from the Trust’s OA policy have grown over the past five years from £622,000 ($1 million) to just over £3 million ($4.9m). Is that correct? 

RK: This increase reflects the fact that more and more authors are complying with the Wellcome mandate, and for this many more are selecting the "author pays" option.

I guess it also reflects the growing availability of "pure" OA journals, from the stables of PLoS and BMC, and more recently from Wiley, BMJ, NPG etc. 

RP: If OA becomes the norm, then I understand that Wellcome expects these costs to grow to around $12 million (£7.3 million) per annum, which would represent around 1.25% of its total research spend? 

RK: Yes, but that 1.25% assumes that Wellcome is picking up 100% of the research publication costs. In reality, much of the research Wellcome funds is also funded by other funders. Thus, if a paper is attributed to more than one research funder then we would expect the publication costs to be apportioned as well.

We recognise that this splitting of OA costs is probably not fully in place yet, but with the development of "middleware" solutions — such as Open Access Key — the splitting of publication costs across funders should become easier. 

RP: What I take away from this is that in a fully OA world Wellcome could have around $12 million a year less available for funding research (as opposed to communicating it). I assume that previously these costs would have been met by research institutions (through journal subscriptions). Is that regrettable in any way? 

RK: To repeat the point, the $12m assumes we pick up 100% of the OA costs. The scale of support available for research is driven by our investment portfolio. 

RP: What does that mean in practice? 

RK: For example the total amount spent on grants in 2009/10 was £450m, compared to £490m in 2008/09 and £545m in 2007/08. The introduction of our OA policy has not impacted the funding available for research grants. See here for the details.

Costs 

RP: In a presentation you gave earlier this year at the annual conference of the Association of Subscription Agents and Intermediaries you reported that during a three month period at the end of last year Wellcome funded the publication of 440 articles. This cost the organisation just over $1million (£611,000), which averages out at $2,367 per paper (£1,447)? 

RK: Correct. Those figures were based on the 440 papers that we paid for during the last quarter of 2010. These articles were published in journals with a wide range of APCs, up to and including $5,000 for Cell Press. The median cost was $2,250 and the mode $3,000.

The recent RIN/CEPA/Ware study on transition models, by the way, argued that if the average Article Processing Charges were set at about £1,457 (or $2,185 — the estimate by Outsell of the 2009 average charge) then "UK universities would benefit from substantial annual net savings that we estimate at £2.8m (or £3.0m including non-cash savings), .....whilst at the national level the UK makes annual savings in funding costs of £9.7m"

As you say, in the piece of work I undertook I calculated that the average APC levied on Wellcome Trust authors was $2,367 — thus validating the estimates provided by Outsell, and confirming that the "low APC" modelled in this report is highly realistic.

We believe that the benefits of maximising the dissemination of Trust-funded research findings, via our open access policy, outweigh the costs. 

RP: As you imply, the RIN figures you cite assume that APC rates settle at a lower level. However, the report also says, “if average APCs were set at a level equal to the estimated current global average cost per article (£2,634), UK universities’ annual cash costs would rise significantly, leading to a high net cost to the UK relative to the other scenarios (other than licensing).” Your assumption presumably is that the average APC cost will fall by at least £1,177 from today’s price? 

RK: If you look at the raft of new, "pure OA" journals that have been announced over the past six months you will see that the APC is akin to the PLoS ONE APC. So, the APC for NPG's Scientific reports is $1,350; BMJ Open is £1,200 [$1,980], Open Biology (Royal Society £1,200); Biology Open (Company of Biologists) $1,350 etc. — all of which suggests that an average APC of around £1,457/$2,185 is realistic.

The RIN report also looked at the benefits (not just cash savings) that would arise if greater access were provided to each of the core user groups. Again, with an APC of around $2,200 the benefits cost ratio (BCR) is "very substantially positive, in the range 10.8-15.7".

New journal 

RP: As well as committing to pay all the Gold OA fees incurred by its grantees Wellcome recently announced — with HHMI and Max Planck — that it plans to launch its own OA journal. In doing so it does not intend to levy any publishing charges on authors "for a number of years". Presumably the Trust’s financial commitment to dissemination can be expected to grow even more going forward, removing further money from actually doing research. Would you agree? Do you have any figures on what these additional costs might be? 

RK: Yes, our support for this new journal will mean that we are spending (slightly) more on dissemination costs.

We have not disclosed how much we are investing in this new journal, but remember that this initiative is being jointly funded by the HHMI and MPS (as well as the Trust). Details about the new journal can be found here. 

RP: Wellcome is a private funder, and it was one of the first funders to embrace OA, so it has been very much in the vanguard of OA. Most research is funded by governments. Do you believe that they will follow Wellcome's lead and assume, as Wellcome does, that "dissemination costs are research costs", and so agree to pay all OA publication costs? 

RK: I think you will need to talk to RCUK etc. to get their view on this. That said, the RCs do already provide mechanisms for their grant holders to meet open access publications cost — either as direct costs through the grant, or indirect costs.

Anecdotally we hear that RCUK-funded researchers find it more difficult than Wellcome-funded researchers to meet OA costs. And, though I would agree that our mechanisms for meeting OA costs greatly simplify the process, a quick search on PubMed shows (for example) that in the past year there have been some 196 Medical Research Council-funded papers published in either PLoS ONE, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Biology or PLoS genetics.

The point I am trying to make is that, in this simple example, MRC researchers were able to meet the APCs levied by PLoS. 

RP: Or perhaps they were beneficiaries of the APC waivers currently provided by PLoS. As its FAQ puts it, “PLoS is committed to ensuring that our fee is never a barrier to publication and so we offer a waiver to any authors who do not have access to funds to cover our publication fees.” The problem with waivers, of course, is that they can be discontinued at any point. I am wondering, however, whether some of these costs are unnecessary in any case. It is widely believed, for instance, that far too many papers are published today (partly because researchers are evaluated by their institutions on the number of papers they publish). 

RK: Umm.. I think I might take issue with the assertion that "it is widely believed that far too many papers are being published" — I'm not sure this is a problem as such and there are actually some drivers for more papers to be published, such as those reporting negative results etc. And anyway, we — and I'm sure most other funders — would never evaluate purely on quantitative terms of course. 

RP: Thank you for your time. 

I discuss the affordability problem confronting scholarly publishing in an article on the “Big Deal” published in the September issue of Information Today. (More here)

Read More