tag:theconversation.com,2011:/uk/topics/scholarly-publishing-13117/articlesScholarly publishing – The Conversation2021-12-02T15:12:00Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1718212021-12-02T15:12:00Z2021-12-02T15:12:00ZWhat can we gain from open access to Australian research? Climate action for a start<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434916/original/file-20211201-19-1wky2ll.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C307%2C3421%2C2274&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>The COP26 meeting has sharpened the world’s focus on climate change. To adapt and thrive in a world of reduced emissions, Australian businesses and communities need access to the technologies and innovation made possible by the nation’s researchers. But most Australian research is locked behind publisher paywalls. </p>
<p>Open access to research has become an important strategy to speed innovation. Making COVID-19-related research and data publicly accessible to fast-track the development of vaccines, treatments and policies is one example. </p>
<p>Given the gravity of the global climate emergency, it seems reasonable also to use open access to help speed green innovation.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-publicly-funded-research-could-soon-be-free-for-you-the-taxpayer-to-read-111825">All publicly funded research could soon be free for you, the taxpayer, to read</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>But, as Prime Minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/24/australian-universities-to-vie-for-coalitions-200m-research-funding-boost">Scott Morrison recently noted</a>, research systems driven by a “publish or perish mindset” do little to spur innovation. Scholarly communication models that lock research behind paywalls slow the flow of new knowledge from researchers into real-world innovation. </p>
<p>Australian universities pay hundreds of millions of dollars in subscription fees each year for access to publications by Australian researchers. Businesses, policy advisers, think-tanks and private individuals who don’t have access to a university library must either pay separately for access or miss out. </p>
<p>This is despite the fact Australia invests an estimated <a href="https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/POSTER_12_OpenAccessForAustralia_poster_DrCathyFoley.pdf">A$12 billion of taxpayer money</a> each year in research and innovation, according to Chief Scientist Cathy Foley. Action is needed to ensure this publicly funded research can be translated into innovation for the wider economy.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/making-australian-research-free-for-everyone-to-read-sounds-ideal-but-the-chief-scientists-open-access-plan-isnt-risk-free-171389">Making Australian research free for everyone to read sounds ideal. But the Chief Scientist's open-access plan isn't risk-free</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>How does Australia compare to the world?</h2>
<p>International research communities are already using open-access strategies to maximise the impacts of climate-related research. Our analysis of publication data* shows between 2011 and 2020 the proportion of research on climate change that is open access rose from 30% to 50%. This is consistent with an <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-publicly-funded-research-could-soon-be-free-for-you-the-taxpayer-to-read-111825">accelerating international shift</a> towards “public access to publicly funded research”. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Bar chart showing percentage of open access research publications on climate change by country" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=299&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434118/original/file-20211126-19-15dfiku.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=376&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>But Australia has <a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">lagged behind the rest of the world</a> in making research open access.</p>
<p>More than half of the Australian research on climate change published in the past decade is behind a paywall. This puts Australia on par with the US and Canada – but well behind our nearest neighbour Indonesia, as well as most of Europe. </p>
<p>Australia’s low rates of open access have implications for communities in need of information about how to adapt to a warming world. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="graph showing Australian trends in categories of open access to climate research and all research from 2011 to 2020" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=254&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434119/original/file-20211126-17-5ckhn0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=320&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>Australia’s research sector is pushing back</h2>
<p>The Council of Australian University Libraries (<a href="https://www.caul.edu.au/">CAUL</a>) is leading the push for open access to Australian research. So-called “transformative agreements” are one aspect of its strategy. These are deals with publishers that cover both subscription access to articles that are still behind paywalls and open-access publishing rights for articles by Australian researchers. </p>
<p>In 2021 the CAUL signed transformative agreements with five major publishers.</p>
<p>Foley argues that a “gold” route to open access (paying publishers not to lock articles behind paywalls) is likely to cost less than Australian universities already pay for subscription access: <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/unlocking-academic-library-open-access">between A$460 million and A$1 billion</a>. </p>
<p>Foley wants a sector-wide approach that would result in all Australian research being published in open access, and all Australians able to access the journals that universities subscribe to.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-publishing-has-opened-up-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-it-wont-be-easy-to-keep-it-that-way-142984">Science publishing has opened up during the coronavirus pandemic. It won't be easy to keep it that way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What more needs to be done?</h2>
<p>So will the latest transformative agreements make it easier to access research needed to tackle climate change?</p>
<p>The short answer is “yes, but we need to do more”. </p>
<p>A few big commercial publishers dominate scholarly publishing. </p>
<p>So far CAUL has signed deals with only two of the largest publishers of climate-related research: Wiley and Springer Nature. The Springer Nature deal excludes many of its most prestigious titles, including the journal Nature. </p>
<p>If the deals with Springer Nature and Wiley had applied to all 2020 publications, our analysis suggests they would have made up to 200 more articles immediately accessible on publication. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing numbers of published Australian research papers on climate change by publisher from 2011 to 2020." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=282&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/434120/original/file-20211126-17-3yzn33.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=355&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="license">Author provided</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Deals with the Big Five publishers will create a step change in the amount of Australian climate change research that is freely accessible. But there is a danger they will further lock in the monopolies of a few players. </p>
<p>Australian researchers could make a bigger difference to open access by making their work available through other online sharing platforms. Discipline platforms like arXiv, Pubmed Central or university systems like <a href="https://eprints.qut.edu.au/cgi/search/archive/advanced/?dataset=archive&screen=Search&_action_search=Search&refereed=EITHER&title_merge=ALL&title=climate+change&id_number_merge=ALL&id_number=&creators_name_merge=ALL&creators_name=&editors_name_merge=ALL&editors_name=&divisions_merge=ANY&abstract_merge=ALL&abstract=&documents_merge=ALL&documents=&keywords_merge=ALL&keywords=&subjects_merge=ANY&date=&datestamp=&publication_merge=ALL&publication=&series_merge=ALL&series=&isbn_merge=ALL&isbn=&issn_merge=ALL&issn=&event_title_merge=ALL&event_title=&publisher_merge=ALL&publisher=&facilities_merge=ANY&funding_agency_merge=ALL&funding_agency=&funding_id_merge=ALL&funding_id=&satisfyall=ALL&order=-date%2Fcreators_name%2Ftitle">QUT’s ePrints</a> are examples. </p>
<p>Our analysis found less than 40% of Australia’s 2019 research output is accessible through these platforms. Australian researchers could make 1,400 articles on climate change more accessible by depositing them in a free open access repository today. </p>
<p>Tackling climate change and improving access to research are both complex and controversial issues. In each case, thinking through the implications in the short, medium and long term will be key to helping Australia achieve its goals. </p>
<hr>
<p><em>* Data statement: data were obtained from Crossref metadata, Unpaywall, Microsoft Academic and the Global Research Identifier Database, via the data infrastructure developed by the Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative, Curtin University. “Climate change” is a topic category available from Microsoft Academic and this was supplemented by a search for terms associated with UN Sustainable Development Goal 7, “clean energy” and “net zero”.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171821/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucy Montgomery has received funding from Springer Nature for research relating to Open Access. She is also affiliated with a number or organisations involved in Open Access scholarly communication, including as a recipient of funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation; and as a member of the Scientific Committees for the Directory of Open Access Books (DOAB) and the OAPEN Open Access Books Toolkit. Montgomery is non-executive director of the not-for-profit consultancy Collaborative Open Access Research and Development (COARD).
</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Cameron Neylon has received funding from Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, Springer Nature, the Arcadia Fund, Arnold Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council and other organisations for research relating to Open Access. He is also affiliated or has an advisory role with a number or organisations involved in Open Access scholarly communication, including as part of the Initiatives for Open Citations and for Open Abstracts, an Advisory Board Member of Open Book Publishers, and others. Neylon is a non-executive director of the not-for-profit consultancy Collaborative Open Access Research and Development (COARD).</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Karl Huang does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Open access to COVID-19 research accelerated the development of solutions. The urgency of climate change demands the same approach, but more than half of Australian research is still behind paywalls.Lucy Montgomery, Program Lead, Innovation in Knowledge Communication, Curtin UniversityCameron Neylon, Professor of Research Communications, Curtin UniversityKarl Huang, Senior Research Fellow, Centre for Culture and Technology, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1713892021-11-15T19:10:06Z2021-11-15T19:10:06ZMaking Australian research free for everyone to read sounds ideal. But the Chief Scientist’s open-access plan isn’t risk-free<p>Chief Scientist Cathy Foley is leading an <a href="https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/POSTER_12_OpenAccessForAustralia_poster_DrCathyFoley.pdf">open access strategy for Australia</a>.
Foley estimates the Australian government invests A$12 billion a year of public money in research and innovation only for most of the publications that eventuate to be locked behind a paywall, inaccessible to industry and the taxpayer. At the same time, Australian universities and others pay publishers an estimated <a href="https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/unlocking-academic-library-open-access">$460 million to $1 billion a year</a> to see this published work. </p>
<p>Inspired by the European open-access initiative <a href="https://theconversation.com/all-publicly-funded-research-could-soon-be-free-for-you-the-taxpayer-to-read-111825">Plan S</a>, Foley’s goal is to make all publicly funded Australian research publications free for the public to read. This is to be done through a sector-wide agreement between universities and publishers. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The multinational publishers of science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) research – Elsevier, Springer Nature Group, Wiley and Clarivate – are talking with the Chief Scientist. But no new sector funding is available from the government. The idea is it will pool the funds that universities currently pay to publishers to finance new sector-wide <a href="https://oaaustralasia.org/2021/05/25/what-are-transformative-agreements/">transformative agreements</a>. These are also known as “<a href="https://caul.libguides.com/read-and-publish">read and publish</a>” agreements. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1455694409702391811"}"></div></p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/2020-locked-in-shift-to-open-access-publishing-but-australia-is-lagging-150284">Australia has lagged behind</a> Europe and America in making research open access. That’s despite it being required by funders like the National Health and Medical Research Council (<a href="https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/resources/open-access-policy">NHMRC</a>) and Australian Research Council (<a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/policy/arc-open-access-policy">ARC</a>). </p>
<p>Transformative agreements could help redress the problem. However, these agreements are also a new business model. </p>
<h2>Two existing models: green and gold</h2>
<p>When publishers accept a journal article for publication they negotiate with authors about the licence terms that will apply to its distribution. Most publishers will issue contracts that allow for open access. It’s usually achieved in one of two ways. </p>
<p>The “green model” involves researchers placing copies of their work in an online open-access repository. Often the pre-editing and layout version is made available because the publisher denies permission to make the “version of record” accessible to non-subscribers, even in the university institutional repository. Sometimes authors can negotiate green access but with a delay of at least 12 months and up to several years. </p>
<p>The “gold model” guarantees the article will immediately be made available free to readers. It usually involves authors or their institutions paying an up-front article processing charge (APC) to publishers. </p>
<p>APCs can be steep. Costs map the “prestige” of the journal and what the market will bear. The <a href="https://www.springernature.com/gp/open-research/journals-books/journals">huge diversity in fees</a>, even from the same publisher, shows these are unrelated to any real-world cost of article processing. </p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1345870131969232896"}"></div></p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/increasing-open-access-publications-serves-publishers-commercial-interests-116328">Increasing open access publications serves publishers' commercial interests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Both green and gold open-access publishing can increase the social capital or reputation of the author. For the publisher, it increases the asset value of the much-cited text and the associated journal. </p>
<p>However, in the business of scholarly communication, individual articles are not of significant value. Commercial products emerge from the accumulation of individual copyrights. Publishers bundle works under recognisable titles to be sold back to the sector as database subscriptions and data-driven research services and platforms.</p>
<p>Data related to citations, reads and downloads can be sold to third parties. These include the ARC to underpin its ranking of universities and grants. </p>
<p>Large publishers monitor repositories and sharing sites that often house green open-access papers. They do this both to capture the data generated and to reduce the potential of these outlets to challenge the need for commercial library subscriptions. </p>
<p>For example, Elsevier’s research products include Scopus, SciVal, Science Direct, Mendeley, Pure, Academia and bepress/SSRN. Elsevier has taken copyright infringement action against independent sharing sites such as <a href="https://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2019/02/14/giving-the-authors-a-voice-in-litigation-an-acs-v-researchgate-update/">Sci-Hub and ResearchGate</a>. </p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Paywall page of Science journal requesting payment for individual article or login by subscribers." src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=378&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/431604/original/file-20211112-19-sl3q8r.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=475&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Paywalls have limited access even to research publications relating to open access.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/dullhunk/6875255365/in/pool-open-access-irony-award/">Dunk/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-publishing-has-opened-up-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-it-wont-be-easy-to-keep-it-that-way-142984">Science publishing has opened up during the coronavirus pandemic. It won't be easy to keep it that way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>What is the transformative agreement business model?</h2>
<p>With transformative agreements, universities agree to pay a fee that covers both subscriptions and costs for their future open-access publishing. These agreements do not necessarily reduce subscription costs. </p>
<p>Some agreements create a “read fee” for subscription access to existing academic literature, with open-access publishing apparently permitted at no extra cost. Others limit how many articles will be published as open access by the institution or discount article processing costs. Many include an annual fee increase of 2-3% to cover inflation. </p>
<p>In Australia, the Council of Australian University Librarians (<a href="https://www.caul.edu.au/news">CAUL</a>) has taken the lead on negotiating transformative agreements on behalf of its member institutions. It is not yet clear who would negotiate agreements with publishers under the Chief Scientist’s plan, if the funding is not directly paid by universities but by government.</p>
<p><div data-react-class="Tweet" data-react-props="{"tweetId":"1313408247156690944"}"></div></p>
<p>In the UK, the introduction of Plan S has raised concerns for the future of humanities, arts and social sciences (HASS), which also face the <a href="https://sr.ithaka.org/publications/the-costs-of-publishing-monographs/">higher costs of monograph publishing</a>. Were Foley’s negotiations to proceed with the big STEM publishers first, HASS, Australian and independent publishers could find themselves locked out of open access, as the pooled fund runs dry. A sustainable transition to open access <a href="https://blog.scholasticahq.com/post/developing-transformative-agreement-small-publisher/">requires arrangements with a variety of publishers</a>. </p>
<p>Pooling funds and collective negotiation are helpful in achieving better open-access outcomes. However, greater financial transparency and accountability over who benefits from academic copyright are required for Plan S-style agreements. </p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-publicly-funded-research-could-soon-be-free-for-you-the-taxpayer-to-read-111825">All publicly funded research could soon be free for you, the taxpayer, to read</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>There are risks in taking money from universities that are <a href="https://theconversation.com/budgets-1bn-research-boost-is-a-welcome-first-step-billions-more-plus-policy-reforms-will-be-needed-147662">struggling to fund research</a>. Their <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/industry/technology-and-innovation/research-and-experimental-development-higher-education-organisations-australia/latest-release">grants already do not cover the full cost of academic research</a>. One outcome is pressure to increase teaching-only positions.</p>
<p>As global open-access advocacy organisation SPARC reported in its <a href="https://sparcopen.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/2021-Landscape-Analysis-101421.pdf">2021 update</a>:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>“The past year has seen more [commercial] deals that led to more concentration, loss of diversity, and ultimately to the academic community’s lessening control over its own destiny.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Academics provide a free service to commercial publishers by researching, writing, reviewing and editing journals without payment. Universities pay for this labour, which generates the intellectual property relied on by publishers. Recognising this value could help us cut better deals with publishers.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/171389/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kathy Bowrey receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research is based on ARC DP200101578 Producing, managing and owning knowledge in the 21st century university.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kimberlee Weatherall works for the University of Sydney. She also receives funding from the Australian Research Council. This research is based on ARC DP200101578, Producing, managing and owning knowledge in the 21st century university.</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Kylie Pappalardo receives funding from the Australian Research Council. She is the recipient of an ARC DECRA Fellowship (DE210100525) and a Chief Investigator on the ARC Discovery Project (DP200101578) Producing, managing and owning knowledge in the 21st century university. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Marie Hadley receives funding from the University of New South Wales, to work as a postdoctoral researcher/collaborator on the ARC DP2001101578 'Producing, Managing and Owning Knowledge in the 21st Century University'.</span></em></p>The idea is publicly funded Australian research should be free for the public to read when published. But if it means taking money from universities struggling for research funding, that poses risks.Kathy Bowrey, Professor, Faculty of Law, UNSW SydneyKimberlee Weatherall, Professor of Law, University of SydneyKylie Pappalardo, Senior Lecturer, School of Law, Queensland University of TechnologyMarie Hadley, Lecturer, Newcastle Law School, University of NewcastleLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1502842021-01-03T18:57:17Z2021-01-03T18:57:17Z2020 locked in shift to open access publishing, but Australia is lagging<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374711/original/file-20201214-20-7isptm.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=0%2C385%2C5574%2C3713&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/surreal-painting-opened-door-open-book-606475526">Bruce Rolff/Shutterstock</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>For all its faults, 2020 appears to have locked in momentum for the open access movement. But it is time to ask whether providing free access to published research is enough – and whether equitable access to not just reading but also making knowledge should be the global goal.</p>
<figure>
<iframe width="440" height="260" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/L5rVH1KGBCY?wmode=transparent&start=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen=""></iframe>
<figcaption><span class="caption">An explanation of open access and how the system of having to pay for access to published research came about.</span></figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In Australia the first challenge is to overcome the apathy about open access issues. The term “open access” has been too easy to ignore. Many consider it a low priority compared to achievements in research, obtaining grant funding, or university rankings glory.</p>
<p>But if you have a child with a rare disease and want access to the latest research on that condition, you get it. If you want to see new solutions to climate change identified and implemented, you get it. If you have ever searched for information and run into a paywall requiring you to pay more than your wallet holds to read a single journal article that you might not even find useful, you will get it. And if you are watching dire international headlines and want to see a rapid solution to the pandemic, you will probably get it.</p>
<p>Many publishing houses temporarily threw open their paywall doors during the year. Suddenly, there was free access to research papers and data for scholars researching pandemic-related issues, and also for students seeking to pursue their studies online across a range of disciplines.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/science-publishing-has-opened-up-during-the-coronavirus-pandemic-it-wont-be-easy-to-keep-it-that-way-142984">Science publishing has opened up during the coronavirus pandemic. It won't be easy to keep it that way</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Graphic showing benefits of open access" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=420&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374703/original/file-20201214-15-1jxoc5f.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=528&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption"></span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://theblogworm.blogspot.com/2014/05/open-access-publishing-growing-area-at.html">Safia Begum/The Blogworm/Aston University</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>In October 2020, UNESCO <a href="https://en.unesco.org/covid19/communicationinformationresponse/opensolutions">made the case for open access to enhance research and information</a> on COVID-19. It also joined the World Health Organisation and UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in <a href="https://en.unesco.org/news/unesco-who-and-high-commissioner-human-rights-call-open-science">calling for open science</a> to be implemented at all stages of the scientific process by all member states.</p>
<p>There is clearly an appetite for freely available information. Since it was established earlier this year, the <a href="https://www.semanticscholar.org/cord19">CORD-19</a> website has built up a repository of more than 280,000 articles related to COVID-19. These have attracted tens of millions of views.</p>
<h2>Europe has led the way</h2>
<p>Europe was already ahead of the curve on open access and 2020 has accelerated the change. Plan S <a href="https://www.coalition-s.org/">is an initiative for open access</a> launched in Europe in 2018. It requires all projects funded by the European Commission and the European Research Council to be published open access.</p>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/all-publicly-funded-research-could-soon-be-free-for-you-the-taxpayer-to-read-111825">All publicly funded research could soon be free for you, the taxpayer, to read</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<figure class="align-right zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing growth in number of open access repositories" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=237&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=433&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374697/original/file-20201214-13-1ck6zbf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=544&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Growth in the number of open access repositories listed in the international Registry of Open Access Repositories.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access#/media/File:ROAR_growth.png">Thomas Shafee/Wikipedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>A <a href="https://www.ouvrirlascience.fr/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/Cost-Benefit-analysis-for-FAIR-research-data_KI0219023ENN.pdf">2018 report</a> commissioned by the European Commission found the cost to Europeans of not having access to FAIR (findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable) research data was €10 billion ($A16.1 billion) a year.</p>
<p>In 2019, open access publications accounted for 63% of publications in the UK, 61% in Sweden and 54% in France, compared to 43% of Australian publications.</p>
<h2>Australia is lagging behind</h2>
<p>Australia’s flagship Australian Research Council has <a href="https://www.arc.gov.au/policies-strategies/policy/arc-open-access-policy">required all research outputs to be open access</a> since 2013. But researchers can choose not to publish open access if legal or contractual obligations require otherwise. This caveat has led to a relatively low rate of open access in Australia.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="chart showing numbers of publications that are open access and behind paywalls" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=251&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374694/original/file-20201214-23-1ngrkwg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=316&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The increase in the numbers of open access publications in Australia has been gradual.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://openknowledge.community/dashboards/coki-open-access-dashboard/">Open Access Dashboard/Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI)</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/universities-spend-millions-on-accessing-results-of-publicly-funded-research-88392">Universities spend millions on accessing results of publicly funded research</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<p>The Council of Australian University Librarians (<a href="https://www.caul.edu.au/">CAUL</a>) and the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (<a href="https://aoasg.org.au/">AOASG</a>) have long carried the torch for open access in Australia. But, without levers to drive change, they have struggled to change entrenched publishing practices of Australian academics.</p>
<p>Our Curtin Open Knowledge Initiative (COKI) project has examined open access across the world. We have analysed open access performance of individuals, individual institutions, groups of universities and nations in recent decades. The COKI <a href="http://openknowledge.community/dashboards/coki-open-access-dashboard/">Open Access Dashboard</a> offers a glimpse into a subset of this international data, providing insights into national open access performance.</p>
<p>This analysis shows a steady global shift towards open access publications.</p>
<p>For example, in November 2020, Springer Nature <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03324-y">announced</a> it would allow authors to publish open access in Nature and associated journals at a price of up to €9,500 (A$15,300) per paper from January 2021. This was a signal change for the publishing industry. One of the world’s most prestigious journals is overturning decades of closed-access tradition to throw open the doors, and committing to increasing its open access publications over time.</p>
<p>At the moment, the pricing of this model enables only a select group to publish open access. The publication cost is equivalent to the value of some Australian research grants. Pricing is expected to become more affordable over time.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="Chart showing open access publication options" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/374699/original/file-20201214-24-65jouc.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">A quick guide to open access publishing: for researchers who wish to do this the required fee can be a significant deterrent.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.openaire.eu/a-quick-guide-to-open-access">OpenAire</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<hr>
<p>
<em>
<strong>
Read more:
<a href="https://theconversation.com/increasing-open-access-publications-serves-publishers-commercial-interests-116328">Increasing open access publications serves publishers' commercial interests</a>
</strong>
</em>
</p>
<hr>
<h2>It’s not just about access to facts</h2>
<p>This international trend is a positive step for fans of freely available facts. However, we should not lose sight of other potentially larger issues at play in relation to open knowledge – that is, a level playing field for access to both published research and participation in research production. </p>
<p>Put another way, we need to pursue not only equity among knowledge takers but also among knowledge makers if we are to enable the world’s best thinkers to collaborate on the planet’s signature challenges.</p>
<p>All of this is good news for people who love to access information – but the bigger overall question for the higher education sector is about the conventions, traditions and trends that determine who gets to be considered for a job in a lab or a library or a lecture theatre. There is much more to be done to make our universities open for all – a future of equity in knowledge making as well as taking.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/150284/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Lucy Montgomery receives funding from the Arcadia Fund, which supports work to preserve endangered cultural heritage, protect endangered ecosystems, and promote access to knowledge. She also receives funding from the Andrew W Mellon Foundation for work relating to open access. In addition to this, Montgomery is Director of Research for COARD: a not-for-profit consultancy providing insight into the use and impact of open access books and journals.</span></em></p>In many other countries, a majority of research publications are now open access, but the system of paying for access still dominates academic publishing in Australia.Lucy Montgomery, Program Lead, Innovation in Knowledge Communication, Curtin UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1203232019-07-15T12:03:16Z2019-07-15T12:03:16ZUniversity of California’s showdown with the biggest academic publisher aims to change scholarly publishing for good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/283903/original/file-20190712-173338-1gov2o5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=311%2C0%2C4985%2C3581&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">For now, it's going to be trickier for the University of California community to access some academic journals.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/michelle658/6022758297">Michelle/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/">CC BY-NC-ND</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This month, academic publisher Elsevier <a href="https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2019/07/11/elsevier-ends-journal-access-uc-system">shuttered</a> the University of California’s online access to current journal articles. It’s the latest move in the high stakes <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-uc-elsevier-20190711-story.html">standoff</a> between Elsevier, the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uc-elsevier-20181207-story.html">world’s largest publisher of scholarly research</a>, and the University of California, whose scholars <a href="https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/chapters/chapter-9.html">produce about 10%</a> of the nation’s research publications.</p>
<p>Last February, Elsevier chose to continue providing access to journals via its <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com">ScienceDirect</a> online platform after UC’s <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly">subscription expired</a> and negotiations broke down. With its instant access now cut off, the UC research community will learn firsthand what it’s like to rely on the open web and other means of accessing critical research.</p>
<p>The UC-Elsevier showdown made headlines because it’s symptomatic of the way the internet has failed to deliver on the promise to make knowledge easily accessible and shareable by anyone, anywhere in the world. It’s the latest in a succession of cracks in what is widely considered to be a <a href="https://www.researchinformation.info/news/new-report-warns-%E2%80%98failing-system%E2%80%99-scholarly-publishing">failing system</a> for sharing academic research. <a href="https://leadership.ucdavis.edu/people/mackenzie-smith">As the head of the research library at UC Davis</a>, I see this development as a <a href="https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-elsevier-impact/">harbinger of a tectonic shift</a> in how universities and their faculty share research, build reputations and preserve knowledge in the digital age.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accessing a journal no longer means going to a periodicals room.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/13873472463/in/faves-52792775@N00/">Newton W. Elwell/Boston Public Library/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Moving from stacks to screens</h2>
<p>Here’s how things traditionally worked.</p>
<p>Universities have always subscribed to scientific journals so their researchers can study and build on the work that came before, and won’t needlessly duplicate research they never knew about. In the print age, university library shelves were lined with journals, available for any researcher or – in the case of public universities like the University of California – any member of the public to peruse and learn from.</p>
<p>Now, for almost all journals, and a growing number of books, libraries sign contracts to license access to digital versions. Since academic publishers moved their journals online, it has become rare for libraries to subscribe to printed journals, and researchers have adapted to the convenience of accessing journal articles on the internet.</p>
<p>Under the new business model of licensing access to journals online rather than distributing them in print, for-profit publishers often lock libraries into bundled subscriptions that wrap the majority of a publisher’s portfolio of journals – <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals">almost 3,000 in Elsevier’s case</a> – into a single, multimillion dollar package. Rather than storing back issues on shelves, libraries can lose permanent access to journals when a contract expires. And members of the public can no longer read the library’s copy of a journal because the licenses are limited to members of the university. Now the public must buy online copies of academic articles for an average of US$35 to $40 a pop. </p>
<p>The shift to digital has been good for researchers in many ways. It is far more convenient to search for articles online, and easier to access and download a copy – provided you work for an institution with a paid subscription. Modern software makes organizing and annotating them simpler, too. With all of these benefits, no one would advocate for going back to the old days of print journals. </p>
<p>Online access to journals did not improve the picture overall. Despite digital copies of articles costing nothing to duplicate and the cost of producing an article online being lower than in the past, the cost to libraries of licensing access to them has continued to experience <a href="https://www.arl.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/5yr_ongoing-resource-expenditures_by_type.pdf">hyperinflation</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/academic-journal-publishing-is-headed-for-a-day-of-reckoning-80869">No library</a> can afford to license all the journals its faculty and students want access to, and many researchers around the world are shut out completely. Compounding the problem, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502">consolidation in the scholarly publishing market</a> has reduced competition significantly, causing even more price inflexibility.</p>
<h2>Excessive profits?</h2>
<p>Academic publishers certainly bear costs. They pay for professional editors and programmers, they manage the peer review process, they market their journals and so on. However, their revenues far exceed these costs and are among the highest of any companies in the world. Elsevier’s profit margin is reported to be <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kittyknowles/2018/06/13/blockchain-science-iris-ai-project-aiur-elsevier-academic-journal-london-tech-week-cogx/">nearly 40%</a>, far higher than even Apple at <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins">around 23%</a>.</p>
<p>Where social media platforms like Facebook profit from – and indeed, would not exist without – the content generated by users, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-academic-publishing-disastrous-capitalism">the parallel is true</a> for academic journals. Companies like Elsevier receive articles from university faculty and other researchers for free, summarizing research that was often publicly funded by government grants. Then other faculty and researchers serve on their editorial boards and peer-review those articles for free or a nominal fee. Finally the company publishes them in journals available only behind a paywall.</p>
<p>And there’s the rub: the paywall. The great promise of the internet was that it would make <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free">knowledge more freely and easily accessible</a>. In the world of academic research – where new discoveries are made and new knowledge is born – the hope 20 years ago was that the advent of online platforms would make research articles universally available. It would also bring down the cost of publishing scholarly journals and, consequently, begin to reduce the multimillion dollar subscription costs borne by universities and other research institutions.</p>
<p>Instead, articles are not readily available to everyone, subscription costs have continued to rise, and subscribers’ rights have eroded, including what they can do with articles they buy and their ability to provide long-term access to them.</p>
<p>What happened to sharing knowledge with the people who need it, funded or created it?</p>
<h2>A model for the digital age</h2>
<p>Maybe it’s time to just blow up the whole system and start over. But today’s scholarly system of sharing knowledge evolved over hundreds of years and contains certain qualities – peer review of accuracy, editorial judgment, long-term preservation – that still matter deeply.</p>
<p>While research products – books, journals and articles – would definitely benefit from modernization in the digital age, we at the University of California are focusing on fixing the business model first. Paywalls and online subscriptions may make sense in other parts of the media ecosystem, but it’s not a good model for academic publishing, where authors and reviewers are paid by universities and research grants (with public money) rather than by publishers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The open access movement would get rid of paywalls and let anyone read anything for free.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/set-ornate-gates-heaven-opening-under-158678495">Inked Pixels/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fortunately, the academy has another option for a publishing business model that can better achieve the promise of the internet: open access. In that model, authors, or their funders or institutions, pay the publisher a fee to cover the cost of publishing each article. In exchange, the articles are made freely available for everyone to read online, anywhere, anytime. Article quality is preserved by the same unpaid peer-review system. Libraries at research institutions could shift their payments from licenses and subscriptions to publication fees for their affiliated authors. The cost is theoretically the same, but everyone can read everything for free. </p>
<p>The University of California has long <a href="https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/open-access-policy/">supported the ideals of open access</a> – allowing everyone in the world to access the knowledge created by its faculty and researchers, for the benefit of all. In fact, since open access became an option for publishing, more and more UC authors, following the <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375">global trend</a>, have independently chosen to pay their publisher a fee in order to make their article freely available to the public.</p>
<p>But those fees come on top of the <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc-split-publishing-giant-elsevier">tens of millions of dollars</a> that the university is already paying the publisher for access to the same articles. This “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-of-the-tax-dollar-double-dip-1459379449">double dipping</a>” by publishers was the final straw in UC’s resolve to change the system.</p>
<p>Several years ago, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_Sp-B_0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I worked</a> with colleagues within the University of California and other academic research institutions to study the <a href="https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/icis/uc-pay-it-forward-project/">costs of publishing with this open access model</a>. We found that, while costs would shift and more research-grant funds may need to be applied to publishing fees, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316481">overall it would be affordable</a> for research universities, at least in North America where libraries are relatively well funded. With these results, UC could see a way out of its dilemma. </p>
<p>When UC’s contract with Elsevier was up for renewal, we resolved to put our ideas into practice and pursue the twin goals of increasing open access to UC’s research while containing or lowering our journal-related costs – and finally achieving something of the promise of the internet. While I was not on UC’s negotiating team, I was among the group of faculty and library leaders that worked closely with them and decided to take this step.</p>
<p>Now, UC’s researchers will have to find other ways to get Elsevier journal articles than the online access they have become accustomed to. Many of those articles are already <a href="https://www.the-scientist.com/daily-news/open-access-on-the-rise-study-31125">freely available</a> on the web and the rest can be borrowed from libraries or requested from authors. There are also a growing number of tools like <a href="https://unpaywall.org/">Unpaywall</a>, which searches the web for free copies of articles, to help researchers with that transition. But for busy researchers with little time to spare, convenience is king, and they’ll likely soon learn from experience why achieving 100% open access to research articles is so important.</p>
<p>UC’s goals are ambitious and their implementation will be complex. Changing a system this intricate is akin to modernizing the FAA’s air traffic control system – a million planes are in the air at any moment and altering anything can have serious consequences elsewhere. But we have to start somewhere or the whole system is at risk, and UC has placed its bet. We join an expanding <a href="https://oa2020.org/mission/#eois">global movement</a>, and we believe we’re now on the path to a better system for sharing knowledge in the 21st century.</p>
<hr>
<p><em>This is an updated version of <a href="https://theconversation.com/university-of-californias-break-with-the-biggest-academic-publisher-could-shake-up-scholarly-publishing-for-good-112941">an article</a> originally published on March 7, 2019.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/120323/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MacKenzie Smith receives funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the Institute of Museum and Library Services and the National Science Foundation. </span></em></p>The UC libraries let their Elsevier journal subscriptions lapse and now the publisher has cut their online access. It’s a painful milestone in the fight UC hopes may transform how journals get paid.MacKenzie Smith, University Librarian and Vice Provost for Digital Scholarship, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1160912019-04-30T07:55:06Z2019-04-30T07:55:06ZHow to approach the revolution in scholarly publishing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/271444/original/file-20190429-194627-ue5mzl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">By opening up academic journals to a broader audience, everyone benefits.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>There is a digital revolution underway. It’s changing how many things are done – including scholarly publishing. The way that academic research is published, and its availability, has shifted over time. </p>
<p>Academic and scholarly journals used to be available only in hard copy. Then came fairly ubiquitous internet access. This ushered in increasingly expensive subscription access to digital copies of journals. And then open access publishing arrived. Today it’s becoming increasingly easy and free to access academic research that was once hidden behind pay walls in specialist journals.</p>
<p>This changing landscape prompted the <a href="http://www.assaf.org.za">Academy of Science of South Africa</a> to carefully study the potential impact of the digital revolution on scholarly publishing. <a href="http://research.assaf.org.za/handle/20.500.11911/49">The Academy’s first report on the topic</a> was published in 2006. Presciently, it advocated that the digital revolution would radically change both the nature of and access to scholarly published material. It recommended that journals published in southern Africa should embrace open access online publishing to improve the visibility and accessibility of research. </p>
<p>The Academy implemented many of the report’s recommendations. It established the <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/">SciELO SA</a> journal platform and peer review of South African journals. </p>
<p>The <a href="http://research.assaf.org.za/handle/20.500.11911/73">second report</a> was published three years later. It dealt with scholarly book publishing. Its recommendations included a call for books to attract higher numbers of publication units in the Department of Higher Education and Training’s evaluation of publication outputs from universities. This meant that books generated increased funding for universities. </p>
<p>Now the Academy has produced its <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.11911/114">third study</a> of scholarly publishing. It contains recommendations we hope will equip academics, scholars and publishers in South Africa and elsewhere in the region with the tools to navigate the next five to ten years. </p>
<p>Among other things, the report calls for quality over quantity when it comes to locally produced scholarly journals. It also recommends that these should all be open access. Discussions are needed at a national level about affordable, sustainable article processing charges. These are the fees that journals charge to accept, edit and publish articles.</p>
<h2>Recommendations</h2>
<p>The report presents a bibliometric analysis of all forms of peer-reviewed scholarly publishing in South Africa between 2004 and 2014 – books, journal articles and conference proceedings. The analysis was carried out by the <a href="http://www0.sun.ac.za/crest/">Centre for Research on Evaluation, Science and Technology</a> at Stellenbosch University.</p>
<p>This yielded many positive findings. Among them are the effectiveness of the Department of Higher Education and Training’s <a href="http://www.dhet.gov.za/Policy%20and%20Development%20Support/Research%20Outputs%20policy_2015.pdf">publication incentive funding</a>. </p>
<p>But there are concerns, too. The analysis found evidence of academics publishing in predatory journals and conference proceedings. In these instances, academics paid for their research to be published without it going through peer review or any proper assessment process. There were also examples of questionable editorial practices; for instance, editors or members of editorial boards publishing in their own journals. </p>
<p>Academics and institutions must be more vigilant when it comes to identifying and avoiding predatory publishers and conferences. Editors of scholarly journals should be required to adhere to the National Scholarly Editors Forum <a href="https://www.assaf.org.za/index.php/programmes/scholarly-publishing-programme/national-scholarly-editors-forum">code of conduct</a>.</p>
<h2>The ASSAf report</h2>
<p>This historical view of the South African system’s performance was complemented by a set of recommendations for its future. The main finding was that open access publishing should be mandatory and publicly funded data generated by universities, should be freely available.</p>
<p>These are some further key recommendations outlined in the report.</p>
<p>First, South Africa needs a smaller set of sustainable high-quality local scholarly journals. These must all be online and open access. They must be indexed on <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/">SciELO SA</a> or international indexes that screen out predatory journal publishers.</p>
<p>Second, the National Scholarly Editors’ Forum needs to reach an agreement with non-commercial journal publishers about affordable article processing charges. These could replace subscriptions. </p>
<p>Alongside this process, the Departments of Higher Education and Training and of Science and Technology, universities and their libraries, and the country’s National Research Foundation need to discuss how article processing charges could be funded from current expenditure on journal subscriptions.</p>
<p>There also need to be urgent discussions among these role players and multi-national mega publishers of commercial journals. These publishers often charge high article processing charges, offer subscription models that aren’t affordable for South African and other developing country institutions, or both. More affordable deals need to be negotiated.</p>
<p>Finally, a national, regional and continental debate is needed to develop a system of high-quality journals for Africa. These journals would provide visibility for scholarship on the continent while at the same time minimising the deleterious effects of predatory publishing and dubious editorial practices.</p>
<h2>Moving forward</h2>
<p>These recommendations are based on the assumption that the research community and the institutions that support it can ensure a credible, affordable, and reputable scholarly publication system in South Africa. This can happen if all these stakeholders are proactive.</p>
<p><em>Susan Veldsman, Director: Scholarly Publication Unit at the Academy of Sciences in South Africa, co-authored this article.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/116091/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Robin Crewe received funding from the National Research Foundation and the Oppenheimer Memorial Trust. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Wieland Gevers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>In South Africa, open access publishing should be mandatory and publicly funded data generated by universities, should be freely available.Robin Crewe, Professor of Zoology and Senior Research Fellow, Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of PretoriaWieland Gevers, Emeritus Professor of Medical Biochemistry, University of Cape TownLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1129412019-03-08T01:28:07Z2019-03-08T01:28:07ZUniversity of California’s break with the biggest academic publisher could shake up scholarly publishing for good<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262542/original/file-20190306-100784-oqhxay.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&rect=155%2C248%2C2355%2C1691&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Libraries subscribe digitally to academic journals – and are left with nothing in the stacks when the contract expires.</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/maveric2003/137231015">Eric Chan/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The University of California recently made international headlines when it <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/press-room/uc-terminates-subscriptions-worlds-largest-scientific-publisher-push-open-access-publicly">canceled its subscription</a> with scientific journal publisher <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/">Elsevier</a>. The twittersphere <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/ucelsevier">lit up</a>. And Elsevier’s parent company, RELX, saw its stock <a href="https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-stocks/uk-main-index-bounces-back-on-wpp-strength-relx-tumbles-idUKKCN1QI42N">drop 7 percent</a> in response to the announcement.</p>
<p>A library canceling a subscription seems like a simple, everyday business decision, so what’s the big deal?</p>
<p>It was not just the clash-of-the-titans drama between the University of California, whose scholars <a href="https://accountability.universityofcalifornia.edu/2018/chapters/chapter-9.html">produce nearly 10 percent</a> of the nation’s research publications, and Elsevier, the <a href="https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-uc-elsevier-20181207-story.html">world’s largest publisher</a> of academic research. </p>
<p>The story made headlines because it’s symptomatic of the way in which the internet has failed to deliver on the promise to make knowledge easily accessible and shareable by anyone, anywhere in the world. The UC-Elsevier showdown was the latest in a succession of cracks in what is widely considered to be a <a href="https://www.researchinformation.info/news/new-report-warns-%E2%80%98failing-system%E2%80%99-scholarly-publishing">failing system</a> for sharing academic research. <a href="https://leadership.ucdavis.edu/people/mackenzie-smith">As the head of the research library at UC Davis</a>, I see this development as a harbinger of a tectonic shift in how universities and their faculty share research, build reputations and preserve knowledge in the digital age.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=464&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262544/original/file-20190306-100796-1cwusvb.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=583&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">Accessing a journal no longer means going to a periodicals room.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/boston_public_library/13873472463/in/faves-52792775@N00/">Newton W. Elwell/Boston Public Library/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<h2>Moving from stacks to screens</h2>
<p>Here’s how things traditionally worked.</p>
<p>Universities have always subscribed to scientific journals so their researchers can study and build on the work that came before, and won’t needlessly duplicate research they never knew about. In the print age, university library shelves were lined with journals, available for any researcher or – in the case of public universities like the University of California – any member of the public to peruse and learn from.</p>
<p>Now, for almost all journals, and a growing number of books, libraries sign contracts to license access to digital versions. Since academic publishers moved their journals online, it has become rare for libraries to subscribe to printed journals, and researchers have adapted to the convenience of accessing journal articles on the internet.</p>
<p>Under the new business model of licensing access to journals online rather than distributing them in print, for-profit publishers often lock libraries into bundled subscriptions that wrap the majority of a publisher’s portfolio of journals – <a href="https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals">almost 3,000 in Elsevier’s case</a> – into a single, multi-million dollar package. Rather than storing back issues on shelves, libraries can lose permanent access to journals when a contract expires. And members of the public can no longer read the library’s copy of a journal because the licenses are limited to members of the university. Now the public must buy online copies of academic articles for an average of US$35 to $40 a pop. </p>
<p>The shift to digital has been good for researchers in many ways. It is far more convenient to search for articles online, and easier to access and download a copy – provided you work for an institution with a paid subscription. Modern software makes organizing and annotating them simpler, too. With all of these benefits, no one would advocate for going back to the old days of print journals. </p>
<p>But this online system did not improve the picture overall. Despite digital copies of articles costing nothing to duplicate and the cost of producing an article online being lower than in the past, the cost to libraries of licensing access to them has continued to experience <a href="https://www.arl.org/storage/documents/5yr_ongoing-resource-expenditures_by_type.pdf">hyperinflation</a>. <a href="https://theconversation.com/academic-journal-publishing-is-headed-for-a-day-of-reckoning-80869">No library</a> can afford to license all of the journals that its faculty and students want access to, and many researchers around the world are shut out completely. Compounding the problem, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127502">consolidation in the scholarly publishing market</a> has reduced competition significantly, causing even more price inflexibility.</p>
<h2>Excessive profits?</h2>
<p>Academic publishers certainly bear costs. They pay for professional editors and programmers, they manage the peer review process, they market their journals and so on. However, their revenues far exceed these costs and are among the highest of any companies in the world. Elsevier’s profit margin is reported to be <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/kittyknowles/2018/06/13/blockchain-science-iris-ai-project-aiur-elsevier-academic-journal-london-tech-week-cogx/">nearly 40 percent</a> far higher than even Apple at <a href="https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/profit-margins">around 23 percent</a>.</p>
<p>Where social media platforms like Facebook profit from – and indeed, would not exist without – the content generated by users, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/04/the-guardian-view-on-academic-publishing-disastrous-capitalism">the parallel is true</a> for academic journals. Companies like Elsevier receive articles from university faculty and other researchers for free, summarizing research that was often publicly funded by government grants. Then other faculty and researchers serve on their editorial boards and peer-review those articles for free or a nominal fee. Finally the company publishes them in journals available only behind a paywall.</p>
<p>And there’s the rub: the paywall. The great promise of the internet was that it would make <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_wants_to_be_free">knowledge more freely and easily accessible</a>. In the world of academic research – where new discoveries are made and new knowledge is born – the hope 20 years ago was that the advent of online platforms would make research articles universally available. It would also bring down the cost of publishing scholarly journals and, consequently, begin to reduce the multi-million dollar subscription costs borne by universities and other research institutions.</p>
<p>Instead, articles are not readily available to everyone, subscription costs have continued to rise, and subscribers’ rights have eroded, including what they can do with articles they buy and their ability to provide long-term access to them.</p>
<p>What happened to sharing knowledge with the people who need it, funded or created it?</p>
<h2>A model for the digital age</h2>
<p>Maybe it’s time to just blow up the whole system and start over. But the system of sharing knowledge that scholars have today evolved over hundreds of years and contains certain qualities – peer review of accuracy, editorial judgment, long-term preservation – that still matter deeply.</p>
<p>While research products – books, journals and articles – would definitely benefit from modernization in the digital age, we at the University of California are focusing on fixing the business model first. Paywalls and online subscriptions may make sense in other parts of the media ecosystem, but it’s not a good model for academic publishing, where authors and reviewers are paid by universities and research grants (with public money) rather than by publishers.</p>
<figure class="align-center zoomable">
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=1000&fit=clip"><img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=313&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/262775/original/file-20190307-82688-17ky3w8.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=393&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px"></a>
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">The open access movement would get rid of paywalls and let anyone read anything for free.</span>
<span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.shutterstock.com/image-illustration/set-ornate-gates-heaven-opening-under-158678495">Inked Pixels/Shutterstock.com</a></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Fortunately, the academy has another option for a publishing business model that can better achieve the promise of the internet: open access. In that model, authors, or their funders or institutions, pay the publisher a fee to cover the cost of publishing each article. In exchange, the articles are made freely available for everyone to read online, anywhere, anytime. Article quality is preserved by the same unpaid peer-review system. Libraries at research institutions could shift their payments from licenses and subscriptions to publication fees for their affiliated authors. The cost is theoretically the same, but everyone can read everything for free. </p>
<p>The University of California has long <a href="https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/open-access-policy/">supported the ideals of open access</a> – allowing everyone in the world to access the knowledge created by its faculty and researchers, for the benefit of all. In fact, since open access became an option for publishing, more and more UC authors, following the <a href="https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375">global trend</a>, have independently chosen to pay their publisher a fee in order to make their article freely available to the public.</p>
<p>But those fees come on top of the <a href="https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/why-uc-split-publishing-giant-elsevier">tens of millions of dollars</a> that the university is already paying the publisher for access to the same articles. This “<a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-science-of-the-tax-dollar-double-dip-1459379449">double dipping</a>” by publishers was the final straw in UC’s resolve to change the system.</p>
<p>Several years ago, <a href="https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=_Sp-B_0AAAAJ&hl=en&oi=ao">I worked</a> with colleagues within the University of California and other academic research institutions to study the <a href="https://www.library.ucdavis.edu/icis/uc-pay-it-forward-project/">costs of publishing with this open access model</a>. We found that, while costs would shift and more research-grant funds may need to be applied to publishing fees, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5703/1288284316481">overall it would be affordable</a> for research universities, at least in North America where libraries are relatively well funded. With these results, UC could see a way out of its dilemma. </p>
<p>When UC’s contract with Elsevier was up for renewal, we resolved to put our ideas into practice and pursue the twin goals of increasing open access to UC’s research while containing or lowering our journal-related costs – and finally achieving something of the promise of the internet. While I was not on UC’s negotiating team, I was among the group of faculty and library leaders that worked closely with them and decided to take this step.</p>
<p>Our goals are ambitious and their implementation will be complex. Changing a system this intricate is akin to modernizing the FAA’s air traffic control system – a million planes are in the air at any moment and changing anything can have serious consequences elsewhere. But we have to start somewhere or the whole system is at risk, and UC has placed its bet. We join a <a href="https://oa2020.org/mission/#eois">global movement</a> that began in Europe and is expanding around the world, and we believe we’re now on the path to a better system for sharing knowledge in the 21st century.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/112941/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>MacKenzie Smith receives funding from Mellon Foundation, IMLS, NSF. </span></em></p>Digital publishing hasn’t resulted in the free and open access to information many envisioned. Universities are increasingly fed up with a system they see as charging them for their own scholars’ labor.MacKenzie Smith, University Librarian and Vice Provost for Digital Scholarship, University of California, DavisLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/771812017-05-13T10:22:53Z2017-05-13T10:22:53ZWhat a new university in Africa is doing to decolonise social sciences<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/168323/original/file-20170508-20732-g4g32j.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's time for students to see Africa differently.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>It’s not often that you get to create a new university from scratch: space, staff – and curriculum. But that’s exactly what we’re doing in Mauritius, at one of Africa’s newest higher education institutions. And decoloniality is central to our work.</p>
<p>I am a member of the Social Science Faculty at the <a href="https://alueducation.com/">African Leadership University</a>. Part of our task is to build a canon, knowledge, and a way of knowing. This is happening against the backdrop of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/nov/18/why-south-african-students-have-turned-on-their-parents-generation">a movement</a> by South African students to <a href="https://theconversation.com/africa/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=decolonisation+curriculum">decolonise</a> their universities; Black Lives Matter protests in the United States; and in the context of a much <a href="http://frantzfanonfoundation-fondationfrantzfanon.com/IMG/pdf/maldonado-torres_outline_of_ten_theses-10.23.16_.pdf">deeper history</a> of national reimagination <a href="http://www.sundaynews.co.zw/decoloniality-in-africa/">across Africa</a> and the world.</p>
<p>With this history in mind our faculty is working towards what we consider a decolonial social science curriculum. We’ve adopted seven commitments to help us meet this goal, and which we hope will shift educational discourse in a more equitable and representative direction.</p>
<h2>Seven commitments</h2>
<p><strong>#1: By 2019, everything we assign our students will be open source</strong></p>
<p>Like <a href="http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/%7Embolin/echezona-ugwuanyi.htm">most institutions</a> of higher education in Africa (and across much of the world) ALU’s library is limited. Students often deal with this by <a href="https://theconversation.com/is-it-piracy-how-students-access-academic-resources-55712">flouting</a> copyright and piracy laws and illegally downloading material. We don’t want to train our students to become habitual law breakers. Nor do we want them to accept second-tier access to commodified knowledge. </p>
<p>Our aspiration is that by 2019 everything we assign in our programme will be open source. This will be achieved by building relationships with publishers, writers and industry leaders, and negotiating partnerships for equitable access to knowledge. This will ensure that a new generation of thinkers is equipped with the analytic tools they need. </p>
<p>It will also move towards undoing centuries of <a href="https://www.degruyter.com/view/j/libr.2003.53.issue-3/libr.2003.160/libr.2003.160.xml">knowledge extraction</a> from Africa to the world that has too often taken place with little benefit to the continent itself.</p>
<p><strong>#2: Language beyond English</strong></p>
<p>Students who read, write and think in English often forget that knowledge is produced, consumed, and tested in other tongues. </p>
<p>We commit to assigning students at least one non-English text per week. This will be summarised and discussed in class, even when students are unable to read it themselves. Our current class comprises of students from 16 countries who between them speak 29 languages. English is the only language they all share. Exposing students to scholarly, policy, and real-world work that’s not in English means they are constantly reminded how much they don’t know. </p>
<p>As we grow, students will also be expected to learn languages from the continent: both those that originated in colonialism (Arabic, English, French, Portuguese), and those that are indigenous such as isiZulu, Wolof, or Amharic.</p>
<p><strong>#3: 1:1 Student exchange ratio</strong></p>
<p>Having cross-cultural experiences, particularly as an undergraduate, has become an <a href="https://frontiersjournal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/STEBLETON-CHERNEY-SORIA-FrontiersXXII-GoingGlobal.pdf">important part</a> of demonstrating work readiness and social competency in a “globalised” world. But scholars have <a href="https://www.dukeupress.edu/global-shadows">shown</a> that globalisation is often uneven. Strong currencies enable such experiences, so those who benefit usually come from Europe and North America. </p>
<p>This has had huge implications for higher education, where “student exchange” usually takes place at a ratio of 10:1 – ten Americans or Norwegians, for instance, exploring South African townships, for one Ghanaian who might make it to the Eiffel Tower. </p>
<p>In Social Sciences the body is the research tool and the mind the laboratory in which experiments are undertaken. We support as much exchange as possible across the broader institution. But our commitment when it comes to student exchange is strictly 1:1 – one ALU student goes abroad for every one exchange student we welcome into our classroom. </p>
<p><strong>#4: Text is not enough</strong></p>
<p>Africa’s long intellectual history has only recently begun to be recorded and stored through text. If students are exposed only to written sources, their knowledge is largely constrained to the eras of colonisation and post-coloniality. </p>
<p>To instil a much deeper knowledge and more sensitive awareness to context and content, we are committed to assigning non-textual sources of history, culture, and belief: studying artefacts, music, advertising, architecture, food, and more. Each week students engage with at least one such source to attend to the world around them in a more careful way. </p>
<p><strong>#5: We cannot work alone</strong></p>
<p>Social scientists often assign themselves the role of deconstructor: unpacking power, race, capitalism and consumption with glorious self-righteous abandon. My colleagues and I recognise that we cannot work alone, and require our students to play a central role in contributing to the university’s outputs. </p>
<p>We design our curricula in such a way that students are compelled to create, iterate, work with feedback, apply that feedback, and critically appraise it. We want them to collaborate with as wide a range of other people as possible, stretching them to use language and the tools of analysis that they acquire in their training with real world implication. For example, students recently worked with our legal, policy, and learning teams to write the university’s <a href="https://alueducation.com/about/">statement on diversity</a>.</p>
<p><strong>#6: Producers, not only consumers</strong></p>
<p>The students who choose to come to the university bring with them tremendous insight and experience. These are often developed and augmented by spending time in the quintessential multi-cultural environment of the campus and dormitories. That allows certain fusions, tensions and commonalities to emerge much more clearly than they might in other places. </p>
<p>Working and living within this environment, it’s essential that students start contributing to discourses surrounding Africa as early as possible. It might take years to know how to write a publishable scholarly article – but an op-ed, podcast or YouTube video is not quite so demanding. This allows students to get accustomed to their voices contributing to and shaping public dialogue in and about Africa.</p>
<p><strong>#7: Ethics above all</strong></p>
<p>Social Sciences both reflect and shape the world. Our programme, then, is committed to the principle of “do no harm”, and also to be an impetus for good. </p>
<p>Students will learn to think and act to the highest ethical standards, and to feel confident in asking the same of others working with them. This is essential in bringing into being a world in which Africa’s place is both central – as it has arguably always been to global capitalism – and also respected.</p>
<h2>Collaboration</h2>
<p>It’s early days at ALU. There’s a lot we still need to do, and it will take time for us to build the institution into what we collectively envision. These seven commitments are an important foundation for the Social Sciences.</p>
<p>We’re inviting responses and collaborations through <a href="https://decolonizedsocialscience.wordpress.com/">our blog</a>, through email or through collaborations with our students.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/77181/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jess Auerbach is faculty at the African Leadership University. </span></em></p>It’s important to shift educational discourse in and around Africa in a more equitable, representative direction.Jess Auerbach Jahajeeah, Faculty, Social Science, African Leadership UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/535272016-01-25T09:54:52Z2016-01-25T09:54:52ZWhy is it so hard to get a copy of Hitler’s Mein Kampf?<p>Hitler’s infamous political memoir, <a href="https://theconversation.com/mein-kampf-publication-the-best-way-to-destroy-hitlers-hateful-legacy-51707">Mein Kampf</a>, continues to trouble us like few other texts in the world. Seven decades after the end of the Third Reich, it fascinates and appals in equal measure.</p>
<p>Available in many translations, Mein Kampf is widely read around the world and regularly features on <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/india/5182107/Indian-business-students-snap-up-copies-of-Mein-Kampf.html">bestseller lists in India</a>. The state of Bavaria, however, used copyright legislation to ban any new German editions from being produced after 1945. All that came to an end though, when the copyright expired at the end of 2015. It is now legal to produce new copies of the book.</p>
<p>This has obviously caused some anxiety and, in an attempt to steer the way the German public engages with the text, the <a href="http://www.ifz-muenchen.de/?id=550">Institute for Contemporary History in Munich</a> decided to launch a critical scholarly edition. It includes a long introduction and countless footnotes that point out the many flaws in Hitler’s arguments. As the editors have explained, their main aim was to foreground “what we can counterpose to Hitler’s innumerable assertions, lies and expressions of intent”. </p>
<p>The edition sold out before it even appeared on the shelves of bookstores. Many readers, including me, are still waiting for their copies. It seems that 15,000 advance orders were placed for a print run of just 4,000. The printers were overwhelmed and left unable to fulfil the requests of many frustrated customers. </p>
<p>It has also created a thriving black market. Copies are being <a href="http://www.independent.ie/world-news/europe/hitlers-mein-kampf-sells-out-instantly-after-being-published-in-germany-for-first-time-in-70-years-34351999.html">traded</a> at extortionate prices, well above the official €59.</p>
<p>Some worry that the Institute is inadvertently spreading Nazi propaganda. There is a real question as to whether those 15,000 advance orders could have come only from people with a historical interest in the text.</p>
<p>Others object to the overtly pedagogic approach taken by the editorial team that produced the new version. Are this group acting like a “nanny state”, using a tsunami of footnotes to control how the text is read today, rather than allowing readers to use their own judgement? </p>
<h2>Not exactly a beach read</h2>
<p>The moral taboo surrounding Mein Kampf is of course all about its author. Hitler was unique in writing a major political work before he came to power, and then continuing to issue that same work throughout the lifespan of the Third Reich.</p>
<p>As Hitler is now regarded as the very epitome of evil, his authorship suggests that Mein Kampf must also be the most evil book in the world.</p>
<p>But those looking for dangerous examples of Nazi ideas will find them in other places much more readily. The infamous speeches of <a href="http://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/joseph-goebbels">Joseph Goebbels</a>, rousing the masses to enthusiasm around the idea of “total war”, Leni Riefenstahl’s great propaganda movie <a href="http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0025913/">Triumph of the Will</a>, or the much reproduced anti-Semitic caricatures of <a href="http://research.calvin.edu/german-propaganda-archive/sturmer.htm">Der Stuermer</a> are all easily accessed and offer far more to worry about to people fearing the spread of extreme views.</p>
<p>The lengthy ramblings of Mein Kampf are unlikely to turn anyone into a modern-day fascist. The book was distributed in its millions under the Nazi regime, but there is little evidence that it worked as effective propaganda. It is, in fact, extremely hard to read.</p>
<p>It doesn’t present a particular political theory, either. Personal anecdotes are interwoven with observations on a vast array of different issues, from economics to architecture, from landscape aesthetics to history. There are certainly antisemitic rants, too, but what gives the text coherence, in so far as it has any, is a general mood music about a new style of politics of “intuition” and “character”, rather than theory and logical deduction. And indeed, much of it is not original Hitler. Whole passages are plagiarised or adapted from an array of earlier thinkers. Hitler’s skill was to synthesise, and to make these ideas and assumptions accessible. </p>
<h2>Why the appeal?</h2>
<p>The ideological context on which Hitler was drawing was familiar to many at the time. This contributed to the book’s apparent “commonsense” appeal, which in turn helped to mask some of Hitler’s more outlandish conclusions as apparently self-explanatory.</p>
<p>But this historical context has long faded, and a critical edition like that presented by the Munich editors can help explain these connections, that are so central to the book’s appeal. What this shows, however, is neither the nature of Nazi “propaganda” (this Hitler mostly left to his henchmen), nor what was unique about the regime (while racist ideas are sprinkled liberally throughout the book, there is no “blueprint” for the Holocaust in it).</p>
<p>What Mein Kampf does explain is precisely how ordinary, in many respects, National Socialism was at the time – and how that very ordinariness lured so many people into supporting a regime that committed the most extraordinary crimes.</p>
<p>A critical scholarly edition that explains that appeal would certainly be worthwhile. And it could serve as a warning against uncritical modern uses, where Mein Kampf has been treated as anything from an entertaining novel to a manual for management techniques in business.</p>
<p>At least some of the 15,000 people trying to get a copy of the new version may well be disappointed by what they find. I for one look forward to finally receiving mine and discovering what new light it casts on the “normality” of one of history’s most infamous dictators.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/53527/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Maiken Umbach collaborates with the Institute for Contemporary History at Munich on a project about the history of private life under National Socialism funded by the Leibniz Gemeinschaft. She also receives AHRC funding to work with the National Holocaust Centre and Museum in Laxton on the use of photography to exhibit the history of the Third Reich and genocide. </span></em></p>Printers have been overwhelmed with orders for the first edition of the text to be published in Germany since 1945.Maiken Umbach, Professor of Modern History and Faculty Research Director, University of NottinghamLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/496032015-10-26T04:35:11Z2015-10-26T04:35:11ZWhy it’s getting harder to access free, quality academic research<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/99463/original/image-20151023-27625-yv2lp5.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">It's one thing for a country's academics to produce great research – but what's the point if ordinary citizens can't access it?</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Academics at South Africa’s universities increased their research output <a href="http://www.scielo.org.za/pdf/sajs/v111n7-8/01.pdf">by 250%</a> between 2000 and 2013. Taxpayers funded a great deal of that research. For instance, <a href="http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/media-briefs/cestii/research-and-development-survey-released">R24 billion</a> was spent on research and development in the 2012-13 financial year – more than half of it from the public purse.</p>
<p>That’s a wealth of research and knowledge. The problem is that it may not be accessible to the broader public, even though it was they who footed the bill. It may also be hard for policymakers and the private sector to access this information and apply it when developing initiatives that can help develop the country. </p>
<p>Why is South Africans’ access to important knowledge and research so limited? And, in the age of <a href="http://www.openaccessweek.org/">Open Access</a>, what is being done to improve the situation?</p>
<h2>The birth of a movement</h2>
<p>It’s been more than two decades since <a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/openaccess101/what-is-open-access/what-is-open-access/">the birth</a> of the international Open Access movement. </p>
<p>The demand for access to information in an open society has grown rapidly since the 1990s, driven by the fast developing internet. Resources and movements like <a href="http://creativecommons.org/about">Creative Commons</a>, founded in 2001; the Budapest <a href="http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/">Open Access Initiative</a> (2002); the <a href="http://www.scidev.net/global/key-document/bethesda-statement-on-open-access-publishing.html">Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing</a> (2003); the <a href="http://openaccess.mpg.de/Berlin-Declaration">Berlin Declaration on Open Access</a> (2003) and the <a href="http://www.lyondeclaration.org/">Lyon Declaration on Access to Information and Development</a> (2014) have followed.</p>
<p>South African universities followed international trends. They drafted Open Access policies and made available thousands of already-published journal articles and chapters from books free of charge through online platforms. They also used institutional research repositories to share <a href="http://www.greylit.org/about">“grey literature”</a> – research not controlled by commercial publishers. This included theses and dissertations, research reports, conference proceedings and student projects. </p>
<p>The idea was to ensure that universities’ research outputs, which were all at least partially funded with taxpayers’ money, were made visible and accessible.</p>
<p>Until then, academic research was largely published and protected by international conglomerate publishers. They used online sales, library leasing and subscription fees to charge for access to research outputs.</p>
<h2>Models change, profits don’t</h2>
<p>The Open Access movement also saw the rise of new publishing platforms and mega journals <a href="https://www.plos.org/">like</a> the Public Library of Science. It also birthed new business models for academic publishing, from the traditional journal subscription model to the Article Processing Charges (APC) or publication fee <a href="http://www.springeropen.com/authors/apc">model</a> and hybrid Open Access publishing options with traditional publishers.</p>
<p>Under the APC model, researchers, research funders or research institutions take responsibility for the payment of these charges, covering the journal’s costs, so that articles can be be published in an Open Access manner and be <a href="https://www.plos.org/publications/publication-fees/">free to use</a>.</p>
<p>But these changes in support of broader public access seem to have been to little avail. Publishers are maximising profits with a hybrid model of double payments, also referred to as “double dipping”. They collect Article Processing Charges from researchers to publish in an Open Access format and still collect subscription fees from users.</p>
<p>British higher education support body JISC conducted <a href="http://figshare.com/articles/Average_APC_price_2014/1311650">a study</a> to explore this practice. It averaged the APC payment for 2014 by 20 universities in the United Kingdom at £1581. It concluded in a <a href="http://www.slideshare.net/JISC/total-cost-of-ownership-reducing-the-cost-of-gold-open-access-jisc-digital-festival-2015">separate study</a> that the overall increase in the total cost of ownership – subscription and APCs – when compared to capped subscription fees was as high at 73% at one UK institution.</p>
<p>The shifting model also brought with it a flood of predatory publishers, pirated academic journals and a variety of <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/investigating-journals-the-dark-side-of-publishing-1.12666">unethical research practices</a>. </p>
<h2>The South African story</h2>
<p>So where does access to research stand in South Africa today? A survey by the country’s National Research Foundation <a href="http://ir.nrf.ac.za/handle/10907/205">revealed</a> that only 20 of the country’s universities and three of its science councils have Open Access repositories. These repositories are used to make institutions’ research outputs publicly available while honouring existing copyright regulations.</p>
<p>The Academy of Science of South Africa (ASSAf) also conducted an Open Access <a href="http://www.assaf.co.za/newsletter/?p=1179">audit</a> of accredited journals. Only 48% of published research in local journals is free and accessible to the public.</p>
<p>South African institutions are fighting the same battle with publishers as their international counterparts. The results of preliminary, unpublished research by ASSAf estimated that university libraries paid around R470 million to national and international publishers for subscription fees to academic journals in 2014. These were limited for use by registered students and employees at universities only. </p>
<p>With the <a href="http://businesstech.co.za/news/general/82273/sa-rand-value-1994-2015/">weakening</a> rand and the implementation of a <a href="http://www.treasury.gov.za/comm_media/press/2014/2014032801%20-%20Press%20Release%20-%20Electronic%20Services%20Regulations.pdf">value-added tax</a> on electronic resources, libraries claim to have lost an estimated 40% of their buying power over the last four years. </p>
<p>This makes it hard to continue subscribing to available research and knowledge sources and impossible to also pay APCs in support of research visibility and public access to knowledge. </p>
<h2>A global fightback – but is it too late?</h2>
<p>Researchers, libraries and universities have started <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/14/science/researchers-boycott-elsevier-journal-publisher.html?_r=1">to lobby</a> against large academic publishing houses. There is <a href="http://www.arl.org/news/arl-news/3618-organizations-around-the-world-denounce-elseviers-new-policy-that-impedes-open-access-and-sharing#.Vii6C34rLIU">increasing resistance</a> to publishers who are trying to restrict access to information with stricter regulatory policies on the placement of articles in institutional repositories.</p>
<p>To date, these protests have had little effect on the global transition to Open Access <a href="http://esac-initiative.org/max-planck-digital-library-publishes-white-paper-on-open-access-transition/">proposed</a> by the Max Planck Digital Library.</p>
<p>This makes it hard not to conclude that South Africans will in future be paying far more for knowledge – and will have even less access to it.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/49603/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Leti Kleyn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>South Africans’ access to important knowledge and research is incredibly limited. In this time of Open Access, why is this the case – and will it ever change?Leti Kleyn, Research Fellow and Manager, Open Scholarship Programme, University of PretoriaLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/420942015-05-26T13:37:34Z2015-05-26T13:37:34ZLong lists are eroding the value of being a scientific author<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/82926/original/image-20150526-24760-w12thl.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Enough with the long author lists - we are running out of space!</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/summonedbyfells/14059228470/in/photolist-nqndNS-gZcaD8-gZccDa-gZc8XH-gZbaHk-gZbgL1-gZbdSq-gZbe3L-gZbhwQ-gZbbja-gZbish-gZc9JT-gZbcof-gZcboz-gZca6p-gZbpbd-gZbbKk-eTNWV-29N5yW-4cygSx-5JUN3F-8uNsRy-9GautB-otgexF-4dnLkG-7deHmH-9Gdxoo-7eJ3hr-5oC2Sm-9GdBUh-9G9Xf2-cQay4s-riod3-dtQu7n-9GajMX-rQHPNG-akFfPv-3gMmaX-BQbVH-brbLZ2-9GcKAS-6ehJWX-n6TLTb-n6TQ1U-n6RT8Z-n6RSZz-n6TNww-n6RQmZ-n6RZrv-n6RNH8">summonedbyfells/Flickr</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">CC BY-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>This month, a <a href="journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803">scientific paper</a> by teams working at the Large Hadron Collider at CERN set the record for the number of authors on a paper – with <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/physics-paper-sets-record-with-more-than-5-000-authors-1.17567">more than 5,000 contributors</a>. In the same week, a genomics paper had <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/fruit-fly-paper-has-1-000-authors-1.17555">more than 1,000 authors</a>. </p>
<p>The trend of increasingly long author lists on research papers is clearly getting out of hand. In addition to being impractical, it is also threatening to the entire system in which academic work is rewarded. Radical reform is needed. One way forward could be to completely remove authors on papers and replace them with project names.</p>
<h2>Publications pay</h2>
<p>Scientific publications have traditionally been the pinnacle of success in academia. Arguably, they are the main vehicle for academics to communicate their research to each other and, ideally, the world. Decisions about hiring – and academic career progression – are also still judged largely on an academic’s publication record. </p>
<p>However, these days research papers are increasingly collaborative and multiple authors are the norm in many fields. A big number of authors can boost the reach, readership and eventually citations of a paper. Many worry that long author lists can therefore be a strategy to “game” the impact of individual papers, or to exponentially increase the length of each author’s publication lists. </p>
<p>This will make it harder for universities and funding agencies to assess researchers based on those records. In addition, if the same rules for assessment are used across fields, this can leave fields where single authors or smaller teams are still the norm at a disadvantage. For this reason, we need to fundamentally rethink the concept of authorship, especially when it comes to large-scale collaborations.</p>
<p>The shift towards multiple authors has been going on for some time – especially for LHC research. Over the last decade, two published experiments from the LHC also had the highest number of authors in papers indexed by Thomson Reuters. In 2010, an ATLAS paper counted 3,221 authors, and a 2008 CMS paper listed 3,101 <a href="archive.sciencewatch.com/newsletter/2012/201207/multiauthor_papers/">author names</a>.</p>
<p>This rise of multiple authors in academic research papers has been dubbed “<a href="http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.1097/abstract">hyperauthorship</a>”, and is seen in biomedicine as well as in high-energy physics. Information scientist <a href="http://www.soic.indiana.edu/all-people/profile.html?profile_id=4">Blaise Cronin</a>, who coined the term, argued that while this is a common problem across many disciplines, attitudes to the trend vary across fields. For example, publishing in high-energy physics is mostly conducted by very large teams spanning several institutions and even countries. It does often make sense to have a large number of authors, and researchers are often comfortable with it.</p>
<p>In biomedicine, however, there is more concern about the possibility of fraudulent practice, especially the addition of people as authors who have done no work on the project. There is also concern about data integrity and quality control when so many hands have been at work in creating single paper. But both fields struggle with how best to provide credit when co-authorship is counted not only in the dozens, but the hundreds and the thousands. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, to a humanities scholar, the hyperauthorship at the scale seen in high-energy physics seems completely alien. But <a href="ccdigitalpress.org/cad/Ch2_Spiro.pdf">even in the humanities</a>, an increasing reliance on data is leading to more collaboration and less work by lone scholars. </p>
<p>The fact that so many people are surprised every time a new paper breaks the record for number of authors just goes to show that the model we currently have might be outdated for some disciplines. Current systems for academic assessment (for example citation metrics) might give the misguided impression that the same mechanics and units of measurement can be used more-or-less uniformly <a href="https://www.martineve.com/2015/01/15/metrics-in-the-humanities/">across disciplines</a>.</p>
<h2>The alternatives</h2>
<p>Even taking into consideration that, in some fields, thousands of authors for a single paper has been the norm for some time, it seems essential to change the way authorship is attributed. Listing students and other collaborators in the acknowledgements rather than in the author list is an alternative. </p>
<p>To truly leave the classical ideal of the lone scholar behind, authors involved in very large collaborations, as well as scholarly publishers, could consider leaving personal names behind to give credit instead to the collective, multi-institutional project’s name. </p>
<p>What is at stake is not merely a question of academic ego, but the system to reward academics based on their work. In fact, for the changes to work, the whole scholarly communications, dissemination and reward system needs to be radically renovated. As suggested by the signatories of the <a href="http://www.ascb.org/SFdeclaration.html">San Francisco Research Declaration on Research Assessment</a>, funding bodies and universities cannot keep relying on publication lists and, in particular, citations as the main measures for academic success. Collaboration also needs to be more actively rewarded in its own right. </p>
<p>Hyperauthorship has transformed – and eroded – the concept of authorship having a unique value. This means that authorship cannot be taken to mean the same thing as it used to. There are no easy solutions to this problem, but embracing difference, rather than uniqueness, should be a start.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/42094/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ernesto Priego does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Replacing authors on scientific papers with projects could be one way to tackle the increasing numbers of contributors.Ernesto Priego, Lecturer in Library Science , City, University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/350132015-03-03T10:59:09Z2015-03-03T10:59:09ZHow to free business scholars from their ivory tower chains<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/73523/original/image-20150302-15981-2o0n91.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">The ivory tower's management gurus sometimes seem to have walled off their knowledge from the world. </span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Journalists and scholars have long debated why “<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic">academia is so academic</a>” and what it takes to make it more relevant to practitioners, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/16/opinion/sunday/kristof-professors-we-need-you.html?_r=0">public debates</a> and <a href="http://organizationsandsocialchange.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/transforming-academia-from-silo-to-vehicle-for-social-change">social change</a>. </p>
<p>Ironically, research in business and management – a highly practical field – is often <a href="https://www.academia.edu/842835/Academic_Research_and_Management_Practice_Is_the_Relevance_Gap_Closing">far from practically relevant</a>. In particular research from US business schools is often “not designed with <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/9707498">managers’ needs in mind</a>, nor is it communicated in the journals they read.” In fact, most real-life decision-makers <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/9707498">never read academic papers</a>, nor is their work affected by research about how they do their jobs. </p>
<p>Without a doubt this situation is problematic and wasteful – even more so because business scholars, on average, earn more than other academics, and salaries in the US in particular are <a href="http://www.eui.eu/ProgrammesAndFellowships/AcademicCareersObservatory/CareerComparisons/SalaryComparisons.aspx">higher than in most other countries</a>. </p>
<h2>Theory versus practice</h2>
<p>Scholars are paid mainly for publishing in highly ranked academic journals on topics whose relevance is determined by the intellectual agenda of peers rather than the real-world demand of managers and policy-makers. For example, management scholars write a lot about the latest theoretical debates on routines, learning, and transaction costs. But they remain relatively silent about causes and consequences of the global financial crisis, the Rana Plaza factory collapse in Bangladesh, and the series of airline bankruptcies in the US. </p>
<p>The disconnect was made plain at a recent academic conference in the US on the topic of “projects and organizations.” Despite the increasing practical need to understand how complex projects can be managed, some scholars in attendance questioned the purpose of studying projects since they felt it didn’t contribute significantly to established <em>theory</em> on organizations. The practical impact didn’t concern them.</p>
<p>This way of thinking is, to my mind, not only ignorant but also costly for society, as it encourages (highly paid) scholars to produce very abstract rather than applicable knowledge.</p>
<h2>Examples from abroad</h2>
<p>Interestingly, other countries, such as the UK, have demonstrated concretely how scholars can have a broad impact in practice and public debates. </p>
<p>For example, the successful mega-projects Heathrow Terminal 5 in 2008 and London Olympic Park in 2012 used a <a href="http://www.imperial.ac.uk/research-and-innovation/impact/managing-mega-projects">project management model</a> designed by scholars at Imperial College Business School. </p>
<p>The £170 million “City Deal” for Brighton, a development project designed to <a href="http://www.ncub.co.uk/news/citydealbrighton.html">foster growth</a> through investment in creative and digital industry clusters, resulted from suggestions from scholars at the Universities of Brighton and Sussex, who provided empirical evidence in their <a href="http://www.ncub.co.uk/reports/the-brighton-fuse.html">Brighton Fuse Report</a>. </p>
<p>The recent report on the <a href="http://newcityagenda.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Online-version.pdf">“toxic” culture</a> of British retail banking by researchers from Cass Business School, which <a href="http://www.forbes.com/sites/karenhigginbottom/2014/12/01/uk-retail-banks-will-take-a-decade-to-change-culture">Forbes</a> and <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/26/banking-toxic-culture-generation-clean-up-thinktank">The Guardian</a> both featured in their publications, is now shaping the public debate in the UK on what it takes to prevent another financial crisis. </p>
<p>To be fair, some individual scholars in the US, such as strategy guru <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/profile.aspx?facId=6532">Michael Porter</a> at Harvard and up-and-coming management thinker <a href="https://mgmt.wharton.upenn.edu/profile/1323">Adam Grant</a> at Wharton, have also made an impact in practice as consultants and writers of inspirational books.</p>
<p>But these are the exception rather than the norm. </p>
<h2>Explaining the gap between research and practice</h2>
<p>Why has business and management research in the US failed to have a broader impact? I see three main reasons.</p>
<p>First, there was a push by certain US schools and the Ford Foundation in the 1950s and 1960s to turn “management research” into a <a href="http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/11-070.pdf">rigorous “social science,”</a> on par with economics, psychology and engineering. That has meant its “quality” is <a href="http://www.economist.com/node/9707498">measured based on academic rigor</a>, no matter how relevant it is in practice. </p>
<p>Second, business scholars and practitioners in the US typically come from different worlds. Getting a business PhD in the US is a high-risk investment that qualifies one solely for the academic labor market. Most business graduates do not even think about it since it is much easier to earn more as a consultant, banker or manager, rather than waste time getting a PhD. Instead, PhD and faculty slots at US business schools are often filled by academically oriented sociologists, psychologists and economists seeking well paid, secure jobs. This can make communication between scholars and practitioners even more challenging. </p>
<p>Third, the rankings of business schools are skewed against rewarding any practical impact. Business schools with successful scholars climb up the rankings, attracting endowments and students, regardless of their real-world impact. Success breeds success – no matter if research at top schools has any practical effect.</p>
<h2>How to close the gap</h2>
<p>Clearly, the US academic system will not change overnight. Top business schools will continue to attract top academic talent producing highly abstract and specialized knowledge. But there is a growing opportunity, especially for second-tier schools, to once again make business research more relevant for practice.</p>
<p>First, external funding gives business schools an opportunity to produce more relevant research. Facing limited endowments and stagnating student numbers, second-tier business schools in the US will be increasingly dependent on external funding. </p>
<p>This is a reality UK schools have been facing for many years. And most UK funding bodies, such as the <a href="http://www.esrc.ac.uk/research/evaluation-impact">Economic and Social Research Council</a> and the <a href="http://www.epsrc.ac.uk">Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council</a>, consider real-world impact a mandatory part of applications. </p>
<p>Thus, to compete for funding, US schools may increasingly depend on their ability to collaborate with businesses, government bodies and foreign research institutions on joint projects. This not only grows their resource base, but it may help create impact and professionalize the translation of research into practice.</p>
<p>Second, new trends in business education could bring practitioners closer to scholarship. With the growing number of MBA and PhD programs, these conventional degrees are about to outnumber demand. Second-tier business schools are struggling to attract students to these programs, and graduates can barely find jobs that return their investment. </p>
<p>This creates a new opportunity. As the business world is becoming more complex and decisions more data-driven, there will be increasing demand across industries for reflected, analytical decision-makers. Business schools can serve that need with academic bridging programs that qualify graduates to tackle complex problems and interact with multiple stakeholders. </p>
<p>The diversity of business faculty with backgrounds in economics, psychology, sociology and political science will become an invaluable asset in educating more reflected decision-makers.</p>
<p>Third, it will take a cultural shift to make a broader impact. Many second-tier schools have been mimicking top schools in pushing faculty to publish in top-tier academic journals. However, the increasing popularity of open access journals, the rising influence of European scholarship, and the simple fact that not every school can rise to the top (of the ivory tower) will change the way business scholars think about impact. </p>
<p>To attract talent and funding, several second-tier schools have already begun to <a href="https://organizationsandsocialchange.wordpress.com/2014/02/17/transforming-academia-from-silo-to-vehicle-for-social-change">measure the overall impact</a> their scholars make. Google citations, including the software <a href="http://www.harzing.com/pop.htm">Publish or Perish</a>, have become a well accepted metric of broader impact, as they measure total citations of articles, books and industry reports in a range of media. </p>
<p>But impact should go beyond publications. Awards by governments, businesses and local communities should count as much as academic awards, and public speeches should be as valuable as academic presentations. Impact also means questioning and changing practice by guiding students and practitioners to solutions that are socially progressive and environmentally sustainable. </p>
<p>Of course, the gap between business research and practice will continue to exist. But more diverse funding, new graduate programs and a broader take on “impact” will help build new bridges. And this may benefit not only practitioners and society at large, but it will allow scholars to produce more meaningful knowledge and methods that can make a difference.</p>
<p><em>I would like to thank my friends and colleagues Alia Martin (Harvard), Andy Davies (UCL), Paul Nightingale (SPRU) and David Obstfeld (California State U Fullerton) for their feedback.</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/35013/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Stephan Manning does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>It’s important to reconnect management researchers with practitioners so their scholarly work is shared beyond academia.Stephan Manning, Associate Professor of Management, UMass BostonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/334172014-10-31T10:46:02Z2014-10-31T10:46:02ZCorporate interest is a problem for research into open-access publishing<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/62726/original/bbyxhbhx-1414156147.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Having the cake too soon?</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/slubdresden/10404994606">slubdresden</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">CC BY</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>The open-access movement, which aims to provide researchers and the public with free access to academic work, has been growing. But most academic research remains behind expensive paywalls, which decreases its reach for the public who often fund the work. The charges to access this information can also be so high that some leading university libraries <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices">cannot afford</a> to access material either. </p>
<p>The difficulties faced by the movement are also apparent in a new survey of 30,000 academic authors. Of those who had already published in open-access journals, the largest group believed that research should be open and “freely available immediately to all”. But the majority of the others in the broader research community said that they wouldn’t choose to publish open access if it was at the expense of other factors, such as perceived prestige. </p>
<p>The survey was conducted by Nature Publishing Group (NPG), one of the leading publishers of scientific studies, and its sister company, Palgrave Macmillan. While other surveys have looked at this issue before – notably <a href="http://exchanges.wiley.com/blog/2013/10/08/mind-the-gap-2013-wiley-open-access-survey/">Wiley</a> and <a href="http://www.tandfonline.com.ezproxy.sussex.ac.uk/page/openaccess/opensurvey/2014">Taylor & Francis</a> – the sample size in this new survey is particularly large. About four in five authors belonged to the fields of science, technology, engineering and maths, while the remainder were from humanities and the social sciences.</p>
<h2>Funding and reputation</h2>
<p>It is notable that NPG sees open access as a major part of its strategy. Its flagship journal, Nature Communications, became completely open access in September. But many other journals have not followed suit, opting instead for a mixture of subscription and open-access options (a hybrid model which offers free access to a limited number of articles). It remains true that the vast majority of journals permit authors to deposit their work in institutional repositories, such as those owned by universities, to allow free access. </p>
<p>But for journals who wish to go wholly open access, it may be that questions over funding a free model still haven’t been answered. It is for this reason, though, that the open-access movement is asking funding bodies, journal publishers and academics to come up with sustainable models to make research available to everyone free of charge.</p>
<p>Researchers, however, remain driven to publish in known journals that hold the symbolic currency of reputation through their brand name, even if the publication is not open access. Publishing in such top journals is often considered a proxy for evaluating researchers’ output. In other words, a high value is attached to your work simply by being published in certain journals. The survey is an interesting example of the dilemma faced by researchers: whether to publish their research in the most accessible place or to opt for the added prestige value of publishing in “esteemed journals”. </p>
<p>There is still a common misconception that researchers are always charged a fee to publish in open-access journals. These fees – known as Article Processing Charges (APCs) – are one way that some publishers attempt to recoup the costs they lose by not levying a subscription. But this is not correct – some publishers offer open-access publishing without charging these APCs or offering discounts.</p>
<p>About 25% of researchers in the survey said they had published in journals that didn’t charge these fees. This appears to be at odds with the commonly stated reason for not publishing in open-access journals – namely that authors were “not willing to pay APCs”. Many researchers are also unaware that they can make their work openly accessible through institutional repositories.</p>
<h2>Reach and impact</h2>
<p>The other problem the survey highlights is the role played by research-funding agencies. As the open-access movement has grown, many funders have become keen to encourage their researchers to publish in open-access journals. This is thought to increase the reach, visibility and, therefore, impact of such work. One way by which research-funding agencies can achieve this is to make it mandatory for their funded research to be published openly. </p>
<p>From the survey, though, it has emerged that nearly a fifth of the academic authors in the sciences and a tenth of those in the humanities and social sciences didn’t know whether this was a requirement of their funding or not.</p>
<p>Kudos should go to NPG and Palgrave Macmillan for ensuring that a survey about open access remains openly accessible. However, constant vigilance and criticisms are needed to evaluate surveys such as this (some past surveys have <a href="poeticeconomics.blogspot.co.uk/2013/03/taylor-francis-open-access-survey.html">come under fire</a> for using leading questions).</p>
<p>Both of these corporate entities have a vested interest in the scholarly communications market and their documents clearly state that this is “market research”, not a disinterested evaluation for the good of academic publishing. Certainly, they have a motive to get truthful data but let us not mistake this for purity of purpose. </p>
<p>As the open-access movement gains traction, more will need to be done to look at the barriers that stop many from publishing open access – and what the benefits are for both academic authors and the public alike.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/33417/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Martin Eve is a founder of the Open Library of Humanities, a UK company limited by guarantee working to create a not-for-profit academic publishing environment in the humanities. He has received funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation in the furtherance of this project.</span></em></p>The open-access movement, which aims to provide researchers and the public with free access to academic work, has been growing. But most academic research remains behind expensive paywalls, which decreases…Martin Eve, Lecturer in English, University of LincolnLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.