As I noted last week, I'm writing a story for Wired News about the latest battleground in the war over open access to academic and medical journals -- public relations.
The journal Nature was apparently the first to report that several journal publishers have combined forces and hired a prominent p.r. firm to spread their message that unfettered open access isn't a good thing.
I emailed the London based office of Nature Publishing Group to see what its position is on open access. David David Hoole, head of brand marketing and content licensing, got back to me:
1. What is Nature Publishing Group's policy on open access?
NPG doesn't have a position for or against open access. For 137 years Nature has had a mission to communicate scientific information to the broadest possible audience. That is why we invest so much in the front half of the magzine, and our press office ensures scientific breakthroughs are covered in the world's press every day. The internet has changed the publishing immeasurably, and there are certainly new opportunities with new business models, which we are keen to explore. But it is self-evident that more journal articles are now more accessible than ever before. The STM [scientific, technical and medical] publishing industry has done an amazing job of moving to web publishing over the past 10 years.
2. What have you done in response to growing interest in open access?
We are experimenting with an open access journal, Molecular Systems Biology, and some of our society-owned titles have switched to a hybrid model, where authors can choose an open acess option, subject to payment of a publication fee.
We have also been supportive of self-archiving, and we were one of the first publishers to encourage self-archiving in national repositories such as PubMedCentral. We are therefore compatible with the access policies of major funders such as NIH, Wellcome and MRC.
3. Do you have anything on the drawing board, open-access-wise?
It will take several years to see the results of our open access experiments, and we wont be making any major changes without good evidence. But it is already clear that a journal like Nature would struggle under an open access business model. We reject 90% of the articles we receive, and spreading the cost of peer review over the few authors who do get published would be very unfair (and would probably deter submissons). We have approximatley 1000 authors, and 60,000 subscribers. It seesm fairer to spread the costs over the subscribers. But of course the picture is somewhat different with a low circulation journal. It may make more sense to introduce publication fees instead of subscriptions on those titles.
4. What do you think of the efforts by other publishers to battle open access?
I think the publishers feel they have been pushed into a corner by the open access campaign. "Public access to publicly funded research" sounds logical, and appealing. But it is really not the point.
Any researcher is free to announce their results, on their web site, their funders web site, or elswhere. For many many years, subscription-based journals have served the needs of the research community, and there's loyalty to journal brands, some of which have helped create and support new research communities.
All businesses have an obligation to maximise shareholder value, so shouting at them to change business model on valuable brands 'on a whim' is futile. We either let the market decide, or we collectivise the industry. But the industry is truly global, which weakens any national or regional efforts to replace it.
Ultimately, I don't really see why there is such a division - why can't we just get on with innovative publishing, experimenting with a range of business models?
5. Anything else on this topic that I should know?
The industry is experiencing a changing environment, brought about by new technology. It is only natural there should be a variety of adaptations, and some will be more successful than others. Time will tell. But one model will not fit all.
