1.
How Publishers Can Thrive in an
Open Access Marketplace
Marcus A. Banks
@marcusabanks
UKSG 2017, Harrogate

2.
Agenda
• Brief Biography
• What Will Happen
• What Could Happen
• What Should Happen
• What Would Happen If What Should Happen
Does Happen
• Conversation and/or Debate
2

3.
Brief Biography
3

4.
What Will Happen
Firm Prediction
Immediate, non-embargoed open access
will become the default mode in scholarly
publishing – first in the biosciences,
eventually in all fields.
4

5.
In dramatic statement, European leaders call
for “immediate” open access to all scientific
papers by 2020.
In dramatic statement, European leaders call for
“immediate” open access to all scientific papers by 2020.
The Competitiveness Council meeting in Brussels in May 2016. Source: http://bit.ly/25oQp6F5

6.
Now requires all grant recipients to make
their published peer-reviewed work
immediately available to the public.
Source: http://bit.ly/2j7i2yF
6

7.
Open Access 2020 Initiative
Source: https://oa2020.org/about/
7

8.
Open access is the future for academic
publishing: Finch report (Guardian, 2012)
“Making all the UK's publicly funded scientific research free for anyone to
read could cost up to £60m per year, according to an independent study
commissioned by the government.
“Professor Dame Janet Finch, who led the work, said "open access" was the
future for academic publishing and that the short-term transition costs she
had identified should reduce over time as more articles became freely
available and the journal subscription costs currently paid by university
libraries fell.”
“In the longer term, the future lies with open access publishing," said Finch
at the launch of her report on Monday. "The UK should recognise this
change, should embrace it and should find ways of managing it in a
measured way.”
Source: http://bit.ly/2kuCPQQ
8

9.
Open Access Is Now Mainstream
Source: https://www.elsevier.com/about/open-science/open-access/open-access-journals 9

10.
What Will Happen
Firm Prediction
Immediate, non-embargoed open access
will become the default mode in scholarly
publishing – first in the biosciences,
eventually in all fields.
10

11.
What Could Happen
Reasonably Certain Predictions
• Article Processing Charges (APCs) rise at rates
greater than inflation, particularly for
marquee journals
• The “paper” remains central deep into the
online age
11

12.
The True Cost of Scientific Publishing
A paper that costs US$5,000 for an author to publish in Cell
Reports, for example, might cost just $1,350 to publish in PLoS
ONE — whereas PeerJ offers to publish an unlimited number of
papers per author for a one-time fee of $299. “For the first time,
the author can evaluate the service that they're getting for the fee
they're paying,” says Heather Joseph, executive director of the
Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition in
Washington DC.
The variance in prices is leading everyone involved to question the
academic publishing establishment as never before. For
researchers and funders, the issue is how much of their scant
resources need to be spent on publishing, and what form that
publishing will take. For publishers, it is whether their current
business models are sustainable — and whether highly selective,
expensive journals can survive and prosper in an open-access
world.
12Source: http://www.nature.com/news/open-access-the-true-cost-of-science-publishing-1.12676

13.
Gates Foundation – AAAS Agreement
13Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/02/gates-foundation-strikes-deal-allow-its-researchers-publish-science-journals

14.
Evolving Scholarly Record
14Source: OCLC Research, The Evolving Scholarly Record (2014)

15.
Traditional Roles
Author
Writes
Publisher
Assembles
Librarian
Obtains
15

16.
What Could Happen
Reasonably Certain Predictions
• Article Processing Charges (APCs) rise at rates
greater than inflation, particularly for
marquee journals
• The “paper” remains central deep into the
online age
16

17.
What Should Happen
Preferred Outcomes
• Cost of producing articles declines
• Openness and transparency rewarded
• Scholarship as process, not product,
incentivized
17

18.
Source: Odlyzko, “Open access, library and publisher competition” (2013)
Publishing Costs Can Be Lower
18

19.
19

20.
20

21.
Evolving Scholarly Record Emphasizes
Process, Not Product
21

22.
What Should Happen
Preferred Outcomes
• Cost of producing articles declines
• Openness and transparency rewarded
• Scholarship as process, not product,
incentivized
22

23.
What Would Happen If What Should Happen
Does Happen
The Best of All Possible Worlds
• Funders manage publication of articles, or
authors post pre-prints that count for publication
• Publishers develop and license services that assist
researchers in the act of making their ideas and
insights public. Peer review evolves to be
continuous and not at a fixed point in time.
• Librarians collectively curate and preserve the
best of the world’s online content
23

24.
Wellcome Open Research
24Source: https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/

25.
Source: https://www.protocols.io/ 25

26.
26
Source: https://figshare.com/

27.
Source: https://academic.oup.com/gigascience 27

28.
Publishers: Still Necessary For Peer Review
“Authors would publish un-reviewed papers on pre-print servers that screen them to remove
spam and papers that fail to meet technical and ethical specifications, before making them freely
available online. At this point peer review begins, proceeding along two parallel tracks.
“Track 1: Organized review in which groups, such as scientific societies or self-assembling sets of
researchers, representing fields or areas of interest arrange for the review of papers they believe
to be relevant to researchers in their field. They could either directly solicit reviewers or invite
members of their group to submit reviews, and would publish the results of these reviews in a
standardized format. These groups would be evaluated by a coalition of funding agencies,
libraries, universities, and other parties according to a set of commonly agreed upon standards,
akin to the screening that is done for traditional journals at PubMed.
“Track 2: Individually submitted reviews from anyone who has read the paper. These reviews
would use the same format as organized reviews, and would, like organized reviews become part
of the permanent record of the paper. Ideally, we want everyone who reads a paper carefully to
offer their view of its validity, audience, and impact. To ensure that the system is not corrupted,
individually submitted reviews would be screened for appropriateness, conflicts of interest,
and other problems, and there would be mechanisms to adjudicate complaints about
submitted reviews.”
28
Source: http://www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=1820 (“Coupling Pre-Prints and Post-Publication Peer Review”)

29.
Source: Stewardship of the Evolving Scholarly Record, OCLC (2015) 29

30.
What Would Happen If What Should Happen
Does Happen
The Best of All Possible Worlds
• Funders manage publication of articles, or
authors post pre-prints that count for publication
• Publishers develop and license services that assist
researchers in the act of making their ideas and
insights public. Peer review evolves to be
continuous and not at a fixed point in time.
• Librarians collectively curate and preserve the
best of the world’s online content
30

31.
Thank You!
Let’s talk, now and afterwards.
@marcusabanks | marcusabanks.com
31