JISC

Report commissioned by the Wellcome Trust, compiled by SQW ltd (2003)

Report summary

The first two chapters provide an introduction to scholarly communications (up to 2003) with particular reference to journal publication, its (rapidly rising) costs and practices like bundling and ‘big deals’. They also look at “new technologies” relating to online peer review and manuscript management schemes,  electronic discussion “fora”, digital archives and Open Access publishers (like BioMed Central) action plans like the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative and  search facilities like PubMed Central, CrossRef and ScienceDirect.

There is then an overview of the publishing market. They acknowledge that publishers don’t just sell books, they sell a “set of activities acquiring, selecting, editing, presenting (in print or electronic form), marketing and selling content.” They note that science journals work (or should) in an international market since English is the international language of science, before giving an overview of the UK publishing industry and the (relatively minor) role of academic journals within it.  They then move onto electronic publishing and the uncertainty over “the appropriate business model” to make it work, before looking at the demand for science and technology journals , the peculiarities of a market – largely based on library purchasing budgets and the potential for journals covering niche areas to build up “monopoly power”. They also look at the unusual not-for-profit positions within this market taken up by Learned Societies and some university presses.

Overall, they say, publishing has moved away from discussions about “the merits of the book” towards a “much harder edged commercial reality.” They then look at how this market can be distorted by commercial publishers keen to maximize profits by gaining control of key journals and making sure they take up as much of libraries’ budgets as possible. They conclude: “Certainly, the current distribution of property rights, with copyright handed over completely to the publisher, does not encourage us to think that the needs of all stakeholders will be taken into account.” They note particularly the “revulsion” caused by the predatory “price gouging” of companies like Elsevier.

After an overview of current (2003) merger and acquisition activity,  and institutional attempts to take on publishers (such as the alternative journal  suppliers set up in the US, SPARC) they look at the impact of electronic access on the market and the future potential for electronic journals.  Specifically they look at Open Access and the benefits it may bring as well as all the usual questions of ownership of material and the negative impact on Learned Societies. They also discuss the need for funding for a single central repository for electronic journals and how to protect publishers from ruin if all these journals are to be made available.

In their conclusions the authors express their doubt that left to itself the “market” in academic publishing would produce “better outcomes”. They feel that relations between libraries and publishers are likely to deteriorate.

They then set out four possible future scenarios:

• More of the same. More online publication. More squeezing of learned societies. More price manipulation by commercial publishers
• Commercial withdrawal. Online publication with Open Access archives. Small journals fail. Big publishers lose influence
• Commercial publishers gain more control. Commercial publishers refuse to allow third party archiving, learned societies are squeezed, as are tight library budgets
• Deposit libraries and OA become dominant. Academics insist top journals support OA. Library budgets focus on access

Their suggestions generally involve more funding for Open Access repositories and journals.

They note, however, that it is in the interest of the greater good that commercial publishers survive: “if commercial publishers abandoned scientific publishing, it is likely that the net effect would be negative.”

Key points

Researchers

The evidence we have seen does not lead us to believe that academic staff are aware of the transformations which have taken place in the STM journal market in any depth.

Publishers

“A parochial, UK-centric approach is not appropriate for an analysis of the market for STM journals except insofar as it influences the attitude and activity of key players within the UK, in particular, in this context, Government. The Department of Trade and Industry estimated the total turnover of publishing in the UK in 2000 to be of the order of £22 billion.”

“As a sector, on this estimate, publishing is significantly bigger than pharmaceuticals manufacture (£12 billion) and about half the size of telecommunications (£42 billion). The publishing sector employed 164 000 people in 2000 compared with 65000 for pharmaceuticals manufacture and 234 000 for telecommunications.”

“Academic journals have an importance which is disproportionate to their financial value and are taken seriously by publishers and Government. The proposed merger of Reed- Elsevier and Harcourt would not have been taken to the Competition Commission if that were not true. But as part of the economic picture of publishing, they are relatively insignificant. “

“Demand for journals comes from the research community. Primarily that community is not interested in price except insofar as price makes it difficult for them to access articles they wish to read…”

“Publishers wish to publish high-quality articles to the widest possible audience but, for commercial publishers, this is not because of some quasi-altruistic wish to generate public goods but to produce profit. (There does appear to have been a cultural shift in publishing in this respect…)”

“Not-for-profit publishers thus find themselves squeezed out. Many of the essential titles are published by the not-for-profit sector and to that extent the sector can remain independent. But they find it increasingly  difficult to survive under the pressure of the commercial publishers and may be willing to join the stables  of those publishers in order to secure a more comfortable future and to obtain income which enables them to promote other (laudable) objectives.”

Institutions

Notwithstanding the mechanisms for cooperation which are in place, there is a great deal of unhappiness, and sometimes anger, in university libraries. The Society of College, National and University Libraries (SCONUL) has made representations on behalf of university libraries which express considerable concern about the behaviour of the commercial publishers.

Making the case for OA within institutions

If the pay-to-publish model were adapted more widely, the authors write: “Library budgets would no longer pay for the journals themselves. Libraries would become institutions through which access to scientific materials was facilitated rather than negotiators with publishers.”…. Which given the background in the rest of the paper on the struggles libraries have faced when negotiating with publishers, should presumably be regarded as a good thing.

International partnerships

“Unlike in many other disciplines, the worldwide scientific community communicates almost exclusively in English. The result is a huge potential readership base for any publication in these fields.”

“There are also benefits in bringing journal access to researchers outside the wealthy nations. African academics, for example, have been able to gain access to work unavailable in paper copy in their home countries. “

Read the full report