Slides from a talk given to BioMedCentral at their company day in London, Sept 2012

1. The future of scientific publishing:
a researcher's perspective
Professor
Stephen
Curry
Imperial
College

2. Who am I?

3. Why my perspective?
G oogle it
occamstypewriter.org/scurry/

4. The Research Works Act
SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON FEDERAL AGENCY ACTION.
• No Federal agency may adopt, implement, maintain, continue,
or otherwise engage in any policy, program, or other activity
that--
◦ (1) causes, permits, or authorizes network dissemination of
any private-sector research work without the prior
consent of the publisher of such work;
Authors: Reps Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) and Darrell Issa (R-CA) - and Elsevier?

5. Effects of the RWA and Elsevier's stance
- 'their content'?
- long-standing frustration with publishers (and scientific 'amateurism'?)
- surprise at costs (RLUK negotiations in 2011)
Warning:
thinking out loud in public... (25+ posts/articles) a mateur at
work

6. An open access advocate…
10 April 2012

7. Why should we adopt open access?
For the sake of science
‣ unrestricted access
‣ faster exchange of ideas
?
‣ fosters inter-disciplinarity
‣ text and data mining:
‣ now that we can, we should
‣ more transparent costs
‣ improved market efficiency = better cost control
‣ stronger sense of community ownership (acad. & public)
‣ more motivated reviewers?

8. Why should we adopt open access?
For the sake of the public
‣ they paid for it (largely) — shouldn't they own it?
?
‣ they want access (e.g. patient groups)
‣ democratic necessity
‣ changes the dynamic of public engagement
‣ increased public demand good for Science?

9. Why should we adopt open access?
Risks/Downsides
‣ authors pays model = vanity publishing?
‣ weak peer-review by predatory OA journals?
?
(Bentham vs PLoS ONE)
‣ higher overall costs (to research-active institutions/nations)?
‣ not according to Alma Swan (see Going for Gold)
‣ do scientific societies lose out?
‣ what about arts and humanities?

10. Why are we not there yet?
Publishers
‣ adherence to a profitable model. Hence:
‣ insistence on copyright acquisition
‣ Elsevier support for RWA
‣ confidentiality clauses on subscription deals
‣ Can publishers be part of the solution? (Or has Elsevier
given everyone else a bad name?)
‣ They have to be!

11. Why are we not there yet?
Funders/Governments
‣ Wellcome leads the way
‣ but only 55% compliance
‣ Weaker support from RCs
‣ encouraged but not properly resourced
‣ about to change...? Finch, RCUK policy
5 Sept 2012 Cost?
Length of transition?
Effect on green OA?
International co-ordination?

12. Why are we not there yet?
Scientists
‣ ignorant of
‣ obligations and how OA works
‣ subscription costs
‣ a problem with access (in wealthy institutions)
‣ concerns for scientific societies
‣ weak sense of public duty?
‣ conservative - fear of losing a traditional model
‣ invented the web but suspicious of it?
‣ addicted to impact factors

13. Impact factors: don't get me started
Aug 2012
Kill them now (partner)
Welcome Trust OA policy:
The Trust "affirms the principle that it is the intrinsic merit of the
work, and not the title of the journal in which an author’s work is
published, that should be considered in making funding decisions."

14. The web changes everything...?

15. Questions?