New reports give further insights into open access publishing
Two newly-published reports, both commissioned by Jisc’s Scholarly Communications Group, provide further evidence for the academic and research community as it continues to debate the future of scholarly communications. As technology develops and new models for publishing and accessing research outputs emerge, so the possibilities for the research community to disseminate their outputs and to reach wider audiences become available.
The first report – Disciplinary Differences and Needs - written by Sue Sparks of Rightscom Ltd, explores the nature of disciplinary differences as far as they impact both upon the use of information resources by researchers as well as the means available to them of disseminating their research results. The survey, responded to by 780 UK research academics in a wide variety of institutions and departments, also investigated wider issues affecting scholarly communications, such as the Research Assessment Exercise, institutional repositories and self-archiving.
Among the many findings of the report was the discovery of the importance of e-prints (pre- and post-) in the physical sciences and engineering, the broader mix in the social sciences and the particular importance of books in languages and area studies.
However, the overwhelming majority of researchers in all disciplines, the report finds, do not know if their university has an institutional repository. Once again disciplinary differences were marked, though, with around 50% of respondents in the physical sciences routinely depositing into institutional repositories, against 18% in the medical and biological sciences. Of greatest importance, perhaps, to the current debates about open access publishing, the report notes a high level of awareness of these debates amongst researchers, with the majority of respondents favouring the mandating of self-archiving in institutional repositories by research funding bodies.
The second report – Learned Society Open Access Business Models – by Mary Waltham provides an in-depth exploration of 13 learned society journals, their business and pricing models, the wider context of their societies, and open access business models.
The report finds that alternative models for publishing research are required since existing models, reliant as they are on institutional subscription fees, are becoming increasingly unsustainable. This is because, as the volume of both submitted articles and published research literature increases, so do the costs incurred by publishers. While higher education is in no position to pay for these increases through higher journal subscription prices, learned society publishers – who are heavily dependent upon institutional subscriptions - will find their margins increasingly jeopardised. For these reasons learned society publishers found the open access business model attractive, but also, as the report says, expressed deep concern over the financial sustainability of a possible switch.
Once again, the report notes the importance of disciplinary differences, and notes too that there is no ‘universal answer’ to the complex issues in funding the publication of research literature. Any transition from traditional forms of publishing to newer models will therefore take time, will need to be explored collaboratively and will need to proceed from a firm evidence base.