November 07

From OpenAccess

This is a preprint of my November column "Focus on Publishing" in Information Today.

I Interview Me on Open Access

By Robin Peek

Anyone who reads this column knows that I take on topics on Open Access (OA) frequently, increasingly frequently as OA events are occurring at an almost staggering rate. With the launch of Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM) and some other events over the past couple of months, I have been quite peppered with questions. So, here is my salt to the dialog.

Why did the publishers create PRISM?

I was not surprised that the publishers created PRISM, particularly after they hired a public relations gunner to lead them. By creating a new entity that gives them some attention, even if the message and the players are essentially the same ones that have been used year after year. PRISM is more noble sounding title than publishing lobbyists. The PR spin is clear that instead of looking out for our bottom line, we are looking out for motherhood, baseball, and apple pie (and toll-access journals).

However it is unclear how representative PRISM is of the views of its member publishers, many of whom are engaged is some form of OA-even if it is just providing delayed access. Cambridge University Press and Columbia University Press were quick in responding that they opposed the PRISM message. Frankly, some of PRISM’s assertions like “Opening the door to scientific censorship in the form of selective additions to or omissions from the scientific record” and “Subjecting the scientific record to the uncertainty that comes with changing federal budget priorities and bureaucratic meddling with definitive versions” were comments that were hard for other members to swallow and PRISM has since had to soften its language.

Is PRISM a threat to Open Access?

The publishing lobby has always been an obstacle to OA but OA started happening anyway. They are putting a higher gloss on the rhetoric but you have to remember that the publishing lobby has always had access to spin-doctors. Just try to interview a major publishing figure without their PR person listening in on the other line. OA came from much more humble roots (as in grassroots) in terms of message but its sophistication has grown. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access is one example that particularly stands out because the organizational members bring their own lobbying and PR knowledge to the discussion.

However, I think PRISM also represents the fact that the OA message is reaching beyond the usual “suspects” and they are seeking to capitalize on the fact that, sadly, people will accept spin without looking to see if there is any factual information to back it up. Frankly I have found it strange that an industry that claims to bank itself on facts are not offering much in the way of facts, particularly peer-reviewed research, to support their arguments. I defer to Peter Suber’s September issue of the Open Access Newsletter, where he outlines this in much greater detail than I have space to do here. Newcomers to OA will find this journey down the road already traveled (and traveled over again) very useful.

Is Open Access a Threat to Peer Review?

We already have OA and peer review is intact. The PRISM members know this as they have members who already allow the same type of OA that the National Institute of Health (NIH) puts forth as the mandate for the research it funds. And I think it would be impossible to find anyone at the NIH who would support the dismantling of the peer review system. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find any reference to anyone who is supporting the collapse of the peer review system-despite its imperfection-without something to put in its place. The “sky is falling on peer review” is a fear tactic. Besides does the publishing lobby really believe that academia itself, who really holds the cards (and who does the heavy lifting) on peer review, would simply sit back and let peer review fall apart?

PRISM also cites library cancellations of journals as a contributing threat that will erode peer review. But libraries have been canceling journals for years and OA has not been a factor in these cancellations, excessive prices have. Yet, peer review continues along unhindered despite the fact that high prices still drive the decisions made by librarians to drop journals. Universities have clearly drawn the line on how much they are willing to spend for scholarly publishing so more cancellations will occur as prices keep going up, blaming OA is a tired distraction. “Stop OA and everything will be okay” may well be the unofficial motto of PRISM (okay, I made up the motto) but this is like Microsoft campaigning to make Google go away.

Is the online advertising approach, such as what Reed-Elsevier has undertaken, helpful or harmful for Open Access?

After I go over my initial skepticsm (was there any correlation to PRISM?), I saw OncologySTAT go live and it is clear that this project had been under development for awhile. Providing immediate access to the research in exchange for online advertising-this is going to get people talking. I decided I had to praise Reed-Elsevier for actually hearing the message from doctors, patients, and other clinicians and trying a grand experiment that, hopefully, provide other publishers with a new avenue to explore.

While Reed-Elsevier’s new venture has many OA nuisances it is not OA, the company is still maintaining the rights to the materials. But as Peter Suber observes, “You needn't see this as open access to see it as beneficial for researchers, physicians, and patients. OncologySTAT removes the price barrier for readers, which will help accelerate research, share knowledge, and improve patient care in oncology.”

Some may see this project as an attempt to compete with OA and perhaps it is. In fact, advertising revenue may well be a viable stream of revenue that could support OA in the long term. With revenues in online advertising increasing overall, this may be viable outside of the biomedical sciences. However a more significant challenge than finding advertisers will be the acceptance of ads coupled with research.