CRITIQUE OF STM CRITIQUE OF NIH PROPOSAL
Stevan Harnad
> http://www.stm-assoc.org/statements/accessprop.php
> National Institutes of Health consultation: Enhanced Public
> Access to NIH consultation
> STM Position on NIH Open Access Proposal
> 12 November 2004
>
> The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers
> ("STM") is concerned that the National Institutes of Health ("NIH") proposal on
> open publication on the NIH's "PubMed Central" web site does not adequately
> define the problem to be solved and, as a result, does not appear to consider
> fully the implications of its proposed solution.
Here is the definition: Not all would-be users of research journal articles are at
institutions that can afford online access to them. *Free public online access* is
intended to supplement access so that all would-be users may read, use,
build-upon, cite and apply journal articles reporting NIH-funded research results.
> This failure to assess properly what issues and problems may exist with respect
> to communications concerning NIH-funded research leads to a proposal which does
> not solve genuine needs and which could have significant unintended
> consequences. These unintended consequences can impact a major industry that
> contributes significantly to the understanding of health research and treatment
> for the benefit of U.S. citizens as well as scholars and users around the world.
The only proposal is to supplement the access provided by journal subscriptions
with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot afford the
subscription access.
> STM represents nearly 100 publishers from 26 countries, including the U.S.,
> including professional and scholarly publishers, commercial and not-for-profit
> organizations, many of whom have active "Open Access" programs as well as the
> full panoply of other business models.
The articles that are Open Access are not the problem; it is the articles that are
not Open Access that are the problem, and free public online access is the remedy.
> It is estimated that U.S. publishers of STM journals and books generate
> approximately 35 % of the worldwide output of such materials. The STM
> sector is vital in communicating medical research and improving the
> research process and ultimately health care and treatment.
Free public online access is intended as a supplement for those would-be users
worldwide who cannot afford access to NIH research output.
> STM and other organizations in the publishing community welcome the opportunity
> to contribute to this debate, as it has done recently in the discussions in the
> United Kingdom in response to the House of Commons Science and Technology
> Select Committee inquiry into science and medical publishing.
The first round of the UK debate resulted in rejection of the proposal to mandate
providing free public online access to UK-funded research on the grounds of
objections to the Open Access Journal Publishing model, which is not what the UK
Select Committee had proposed to mandate. This misunderstanding will non doubt be
remedied in the next round.
> Publishers understand the desirability and the need to communicate research
> results effectively, which is a critical part of the mission of every publishing
> house, whether it is a commercial entity or a not-for-profit university or
> society publisher.
Agreed, and this is not at issue. At issue is the need to supplement subscription
access with free public online access for all would-be users who cannot afford the
subscription access.
> The current NIH proposal is intended to result in a single database
> of primary research articles that have been accepted for publication in
> medical journals and that have been subject to the normal peer review
> and editing processes of such journals. Articles would be posted on the
> PubMed Central site within six months after publication in the original
> journals. The NIH has indicated that the proposal is intended to "share
> and support public access to the results and accomplishments of the
> activities that it funds," and other supporters of the proposal have
> indicated that it will make study results available to researchers,
> physicians and patients who do not otherwise have access to such
> information.
> NIH officials have indicated that they do not intend to harm the STM publishing
> market. For this intention to become reality, the NIH proposal must assume that
> revenues to support the peer reviewing, editorial and production processes etc.
> will be obtained through alternative business models. Specifically, NIH must be
> assuming that either: (a) a six months period of exclusivity will be enough to
> create a sustainable marketable demand for journal content; or; (b) that an
> author-pays model will be funded and will be successful.
No, the NIH is not assuming anything about business models. It is assuming
only that access to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded
research should be supplemented with free public online access for
those would-be users who cannot afford subscriptions.
> There is little evidence to indicate that either business model is viable or
> sustainable. In fact, there is substantial evidence to the contrary.
To repeat, what is being proposed is not an alternative business model but access
to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research should be
supplemented with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot
afford subscriptions.
> In any event, we believe it is entirely inappropriate for a government agency of
> any country to be advocating and supporting particular business models, either
> directly or indirectly.
To repeat, what is being proposed is not an alternative business model but that
access to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research should be
supplemented with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot
afford subscriptions.
> The "six months" business model ignores the scientific fact that
> research articles are often not read, reviewed or cited shortly upon
> publication. Studies have demonstrated that fewer than 30% on average
> of the "lifetime readings" of a typical research article have occurred
> within six months of publication, and many articles in particular fields
> will be reviewed and certainly cited for many years.
It is not clear what point is being made here: The NIH proposal is
intended so that all would-be users who wish to read, use and cite journal
articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research, at any time,
not only those whose institutions can afford the subscription version.
> Subscribers may well believe that a wait of six months for free access
> is worth the cost of not having the most current information, especially
> given the long life of research articles, and many will cancel journal
> subscriptions. The important point is that it is neither the role of
> NIH nor STM to decide how long a research article will have value--
> that is the role for a free market.
This is speculation, and all evidence to date is that not only does this not
happen, but it does not even happen when the free public online access supplements
are provided immediately upon publication (not after a 6-month delay), and even in
fields where the free public online access supplements have reached 100% (rather
than just the subset corresponding to what NIH funds):
"Critique of PSP/AAP Critique of NIH Proposal"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4146.html
> With respect to the "author pays" Open Access model, even the UK
> Select Committee, a strong supporter of such a model, admitted in
> its report (see http://www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/s&thome.htm
> ) that there are significant concerns for scholarly societies and
> commercial "free-riders". There has been no evidence introduced in
> any fora that suggests that authors or their institutions are prepared
> to pay significant amounts for publication, and some surveys suggest
> that authors will be reluctant to pay more than $500 per article,
> a rate considerably below that currently charged by the well-known US
> pen Access publisher, the Public Library of Science and which most STM
> publishers who currently operate "author pays" models believe would be
> loss-making and unsustainable.
To repeat: What is being proposed is not the .author pays. model but that access
to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research should be
supplemented with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot
afford subscriptions.
> The result of the NIH proposal as it currently stands, especially if it is
> adopted by other US federal government agencies, is likely to be the closing of
> those STM journals unable to secure other substantial and sustaining
> sources of funding, or the need to fund the publication system out of
> US government taxpayer funds.
This is a speculative and counterfactual hypothesis (and a rather shrill one). Not
only is it not based on any actual supporting evidence, but all actual evidence to
date is in fact in exactly the opposite direction. Even in fields where there has
already been 100% for several years now (certain fields of Physics and of Computer
Science), there has been neither ?closing of STM journals? nor even increased
cancellation pressure. One journal (Journal of High Energy Physics), founded as an
Open Access journal, has even successfully made the transition back to the
subscription model when it failed to make ends meet (despite the fact that 100% of
its contents remain publicly accessible free online before, during and since the
transition).
Moreover, there are extremely obvious counterhypotheses as to how the system could
adapt, quite naturally, if and when it ever needed to:
"Critique of PSP/AAP Critique of NIH Proposal"
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/4146.html
> It is particularly important to understand that certain medical journals will
> have a high proportion of articles deriving from research that receives some NIH
> funding. Such journals would likely require government funding, which will place
> a significant burden on taxpayers and will introduce significant uncertainty.
It is again pure speculation, based on no evidence, and contrary to existing
evidence, that supplementing subscription access with free public online access
for those would-be users who cannot afford subscriptions will .require government
funding.. It is not an alternative publishing model that is being proposed but
supplementing subscription access with free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford subscriptions.
> STM publishers have developed and continue to develop innovative and accessible
> business models to broaden information access such as:
>
> -- freely accessible abstracts or summaries;
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford subscription to the full-texts.
> -- flexible subscription licensing arrangements for electronic journals;
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford subscription/licensed versions.
> -- "pay per view" article access for those unable to subscribe;
Subscription, licensing and pay-per-view are all forms of paid access, and access
to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research need to be
supplemented with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot
afford the paid access (whether via subscription, license, or pay-per-view).
> -- the implementation of discovery tools such as links to articles in thousands
> of journals from hundreds of different publishers (through CrossRef, see
> www.crossref.org ) and novel searching tools;
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the full-texts that result from
such searches.
> -- establishing standards and methodologies for electronic preservation
> (including archival linking).
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford the paid-access versions, now. (The problem of
providing free public online access for those would-be users who cannot afford the
paid-access versions has nothing whatsoever to do with the problem of electronic
preservation.)
> STM publishers have also formed and been significant contributors to projects
> such as HINARI and AGORA to ensure broad access to core health and argriculture
> materials for developing countries.
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford paid-access versions and are not covered by
HINARI and AGORA or other forms of charity.
> Revenues for investment or non-profit purposes are essential in supporting the
> core scholarly publishing functions. These include peer review, editorial
> selection and judgment, copy editing and production, indexing and other finding
> tools, the projects and programs identified above for improved access,
> and the investments of hundreds of millions of dollars in electronic
> information infrastructure and archiving.
What is being proposed is not an alternative economic model requiring the
renunciation of those revenues, nor is there any evidence that the revenues would
be lost when paid access is supplemented with free public online access versions
for those would-be users who cannot afford the paid-access versions. This is all
counterfactual speculation.
> Scientific disciplines differ widely in their scholarly communication
> practices. Journals differ from one another in their editorial
> content, features, sales models, and how they serve the needs of their
> specific research communities. As noted, many STM members are currently
> experimenting with business models that incorporate elements of "Open
> Access" principles, whether in permitting authors to self-archive their
> papers on open institutional web sites, in providing open web sites
> for journals, or in providing such access via the Internet for journal
> issues within a certain period of time selected by the publisher as
> relevant for the particular scientific discipline. Some STM members
> have been engaged in Open Access journal projects for many years,
> although not yet in ways that demonstrate significant longevity and
> sustainability. Generally these programs continue to require subsidy
> funding of one kind or another, and in that sense require publishers or
> sponsors with substantial funding capacities.
These publisher initiatives are all welcome and commendable, but what is needed
right now is free public online access to journal articles reporting the results
of NIH funded research for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to
the full-texts that result from such searches.
> The multitude of business models that have emerged over many years serve
> the needs of authors and customers by ensuring the wide and continuous
> dissemination of consistently high-quality, independently validated
> research, and we welcome new publishers and new business models to
> our markets.
They do serve the interests of those users whose institutions can afford them, and
they will continue to serve their interests. But what is also needed right now is
free public online access to journal articles reporting the results of NIH funded
research for those would-be users who cannot afford paid access to the full-texts
that result from such searches.
> There is nothing new in the NIH proposal other than unfunded mandates that
> arbitrarily favour some models over others.
To repeat, what is being proposed is not an alternative business model but that
access to journal articles reporting the results of NIH-funded research should be
supplemented with free public online access for those would-be users who cannot
afford subscriptions
> STM submits that the research community is well served by the
> many dynamic business models in the marketplace. In most surveys of
> universities, researchers indicate that they currently have more access,
> through their desktops, to more material than at any prior time, and this
> evidence was also identified in the UK Select Committee's report. The
> NIH's own abstracting and indexing service, MEDLINE, is freely available
> on the Internet and provides a significant starting point for researchers
> interested in the most recent developments in particular medical fields.
All of this is no doubt true, but again beside the point. What is needed immediately
is free public online access for all those would-be users who cannot
afford access to the full-texts.
> STM believes that there are two fundamental areas where greater
> collaborative attention and energy among government agencies like the
> NIH, on the one hand, and publishers of all business models, and medical
> associations and institutions such as the American Diabetes Association,
> on the other hand, is sorely needed.
>
> -- First, physicians and health care professionals need better digested
> clinical material that will help keep them informed in an authoritative
> and efficient manner.
Authoritative, efficient digests of clinical material would no doubt be very
useful, but this is again beside the point. What is needed immediately is free
public online access for those would-be users who cannot afford access to the
full-texts.
> -- Second, patients and other health care consumers have a similar need
> for professional help in selecting and editing the most relevant medical
> content to create useful patient-oriented information. The American
> Diabetes Association's project called the "Diabetes Learning Center" is
> one such effort, which features information written for consumers with
> limited "health literacy" based on the primary research, with links to
> further selected content of a more technical nature.
Selected, edited health literacy content would no doubt be very useful, but this
is again beside the point. What is needed immediately is free public online access
for those would-be users who cannot afford access to the full-texts.
> All of the above does not mean that that STM feels that physicians and
> patients should not have access to primary research material, if such
> material would be useful to them, on the contrary. For these purposes,
> MEDLINE research and available access to the primary journal material
> through their local institutional or public library should remain
> available through current business models.
MEDLINE is extremely useful, but what is needed is free public online
access for those would-be users who cannot afford the paid-access
versions, now. In the online era there is no longer any need or
justification for either researchers' or the general public's having
to search abstracts online and then, for each relevant "hit," having
to go out and try to find a library that has a hard copy that they may
access! (This would needlessly keep both researchers and the general
public in the stone age.) What is needed is both search and free public
online access to the full-texts for all would-be users.
> However, the development of more targeted information resources will be
> infinitely more valuable than will mandated posting of research information.
Targeted information resources will no doubt be valuable, but what is needed is
free public online access for those would-be users who cannot afford the
paid-access versions, now.
> Projects such as the ADA's will be created not by government mandate but as a
> result of collaboration among professional organizations and professional
> authors and editors, supported by a vital publishing sector, which is currently
> happening.
No doubt. But projects such as free public online access to NIH-funded research
for those would-be users who cannot afford the paid-access versions will evidently
only be created by an NIH mandate. Collaboration from professional organizations
is always welcome, but NIH and its funded authors are quite capable, in parallel,
of supplementing anything that results from such collaborative efforts with free
public online access to NIH-funded research -- for those would-be users who cannot
afford the paid versions -- despite all valuable professional collaborative
efforts, now.
> STM member publishers have been involved in projects such as the
Diabetes Learning Center since early in 2004, and STM publishers are
currently working with such societies and associations such as the
American Cancer Society and the American Heart Association (one such
initiative is to be announced a few weeks from now ). The main elements
of these projects are:
> -- Publishers working through the health associations to provide access
> for their patient information professionals to primary research relevant
> to their patients;
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford subscription versions, now.
> -- Secondly, through the health associations, to provide access to patients and
> care-givers to the research papers selected by the associations' information
> professionals.
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access for those
would-be users who cannot afford subscription versions, now.
> -- Thirdly, and not least importantly, such patient relevant access is given
> from virtually ALL papers published in the world, not just those supported by
> NIH. Initiatives such as these will not be created by the proposal put forward
> by NIH but only as a result of collaboration among professional organizations
> and professional authors and editors, supported by a vital publishing sector.
This is commendable, but what is needed is free public online access to NIH-funded
research for those would-be users who cannot afford subscription versions, now.
> In summary, STM believes that by not properly defining the problems to be
> solved, the NIH proposes solutions that in turn create enormous problems for the
> flow of information today, as well as the continuity of the archival record of
> scientific progress that is so important to our society tomorrow.
The problem to be solved has been simply (and repeatedly)defined: What is needed
is free public online access to NIH-funded research for all would-be users who
cannot afford subscription versions, now. This is a parallel action, supplementing
the flow of information, not substituting for or impeding it, and it has nothing
to do with preserving the archival record, which is likewise an independent,
parallel problem.
> STM publishers are currently participating in many innovative programs to
> increase "health literacy" and welcome the contribution that the NIH can make to
> such projects.
The problem of providing free public online access to NIH-funded research for
those would-be users who cannot afford subscription versions is not the same as
the problem of .health literacy. (but access is certainly a necessary condition
for it).
> We strongly suggest, however, that any decision-making about such important
> issues should only be done after thorough market investigation, serious
> reflection and significant deliberations, and STM believes that an authoritative
> and representative body of experts should consider these issues and make
> recommendations. STM looks forward to participating in that process.
It is not at all clear why anyone would imagine that ensuring that publicly funded
research is made publicly accessible for free online should be a matter for
anyone else to decide than the public, the funders and the researchers.
> Very truly yours,
> Pieter S.H. Bolman PhD
> Chief Executive Officer
> International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers
> The Hague
> The Netherlands
> bolman_at_stm.nl
Stevan Harnad
Moderator,
AMERICAN SCIENTIST OPEN ACCESS FORUM
A complete Hypermail archive of the ongoing discussion of providing
open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004)
is available at:
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html
To join or leave the Forum or change your subscription address:
http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.html
Post discussion to:
american-scientist-open-access-forum_at_amsci.org
Received on Wed Nov 17 2004 - 17:40:44 GMT