Reflections on the DC principlesOn March 16 a group of non-profit publishers released the Washington D.C. Principles for Free Access to Science. The signatories are learned societies and non-profit associations that publish subscription-based journals. Although they charge subscriptions, they also offer free online access to some of their content (e.g. sufficiently old issues) and to some of their users (e.g. from sufficiently indigent nations).
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, issue #72
April 2, 2004
by Peter Suber
Some press accounts and listserv discussions have misunderstood what is happening here. Because the signatories emphasize "free access to science", some observers have mistaken them for open-access advocates. On the other side, because open-access advocates often support non-profit publishers as good citizens in an industry dominated by monopolists, they sometimes understate their differences with them in order to preserve alliances and remain focused on where the problems are much worse. So some observers have mistaken the position of OA advocates as endorsement of the DC principles. Both sides have underemphasized their differences, in the name of comity and cooperation, but with the result that they have been mistaken for one another.
I want to try something tricky. I want to be clear and candid about the differences, but I also want to interpret the DC principles as a constructive step forward and respond constructively to them.
From the standpoint of open access, subscriptions are a problem. They are price barriers that not only exclude indigent readers, but also exclude crawling software that facilitates full-text search, retrieval, indexing, mining, and alerting. For most of the software that mediates serious research, prices are absolute barriers, whether they are high or low, as long as they enforced with password-demanding DRM. But for human readers and their institutions, prices are a matter of degree. Free is better than affordable, and affordable is better than expensive.
In an industry known for exorbitant prices, non-profit publishers tend to keep their prices affordable. In an industry known for publishers who put the needs of shareholders ahead of the needs of science, society publishers tend to use their revenue to advance their scientific and scholarly missions. They deserve praise for this even from scientists who see all subscription fees as unnecessary access barriers.
I don't want to criticize the effort to keep prices within reach and generate revenue to advance the cause of science and scholarship, and I don't want to magnify differences among groups that are both dedicated to widening access to knowledge. But I do believe that fully free access is economically sustainable and in the best interest of science. I also believe that arguing for this conclusion (which I will not do much of here) need not become divisive any more than arguments for other conclusions, including arguments for the opposite conclusion. I'd like to cast this as a disagreement among friends.
The preamble to the principles asserts that the signatories want to promote "the wide dissemination of information in [their] journals". Principle #3 lists five ways in which they support "forms of free access", such as free online access to selected new articles and free online access to whole issues after a certain embargo period.
In principle #6, the signatories say that they "strongly support the principle that publication fees should not be borne solely by researchers and their funding institutions, because the ability to publish in scientific journals should be available equally to all scientists worldwide, no matter what their economic circumstances."
It's not clear what principle #6 is getting at. If it asserts that the funding model for scientific journals should not exclude indigent authors, then the signatories are preaching to the converted or disputing without an antagonist. Everyone agrees with that principle. If it means that the upfront funding model used at many OA journals does exclude indigent authors, despite good intentions, despite fee waivers in cases of hardship, despite the willingness of many foundations to pay these fees on behalf of authors, and despite other mitigations, then it's a factual claim in need of evidence, not a principle to assert without evidence. I've argued elsewhere that this factual claim is false (see SOAN for 11/2/03). But if it's true, then OA proponents will be just as concerned as OA critics to find a remedy.
In principle #7 the signatories say "that a free society allows for the co-existence of many publishing models".
There is more than one publishing model within OA. For example, most OA journals in biomedicine use the upfront funding model obliquely criticized in principle #6, while OA journals in less well-funded fields are finding models that require no fees at all. But the signatories don't seem to mean that there should be many co-existing models *within* OA, although I think that should please them. They seem to mean that there should be many co-existing models *beyond* OA, or that subscription-based models and OA models should co-exist. If the question is what "a free society allows", then of course they are right. Nobody wants to live in a society that prohibits subscription-based journals. (Arguing for another model is very different from arguing for a prohibition.) If the question is what's in the best interest science, then it's an open question not settled by consensus on what is permitted in a free society.
I'd like to read principles ##6 and 7 in light of the preamble on wide dissemination and in light of the list in principle #4 of the ways that the signatories already provide free access. Taking these together, the document seems to assert a principle that could be paraphrased this way: Scientific journal publishers should provide the widest possible access compatible with a responsible business model. A responsible business model --among other things-- pays the journal's expenses, doesn't compromise the integrity of peer review, and doesn't exclude indigent authors.
I hope this is a fair way to read the parts of the document in light of the whole and the whole in light of the parts. If it is, then I want to praise it. It deserves praise as a constructive step in the dialog about access and as a good principle in its own right. It's a constructive step because it appeals to commonly held values and gets us beyond polarization and name-calling. It appeals to commonly held values because OA journals want a responsible business model in exactly the same sense. If we agree about that, then we can turn down the temperature and talk shop about how to widen access as far as possible under a responsible business model and how to develop responsible models compatible with wider access.
I may be wrong. The DC signatories may have meant that they want a certain level of wide access compatible with the survival of subscription revenue, even if it would be perfectly possible to achieve wider, completely open access under a responsible business model. If so, then I would have to quarrel with their goal. But for now, I'll assume we agree about the goal and can work together on the means and methods. Which means and methods work best in which circumstances, and how close can we get to the goal without violating our criteria for a responsible business model? This way of reading the document makes it an invitation to constructive collaboration.
It also makes it an open challenge to both kinds of journals. The open challenge to OA journals is to show that immediate OA to all of their peer-reviewed research articles is compatible with a responsible business model. Their challenge is to show that their model is responsible, or to show that widening access further than the DC signatories are willing to do is compatible with the DC signatories' own high standards for a responsible journal. Part of their challenge is to alter their models if they discover that they are not responsible.
The open challenge to subscription-based journals is to show that all responsible publishing models require subscriptions. If there is even one that doesn't require subscriptions, then they are not widening access as far as they responsibly can. Their challenge is to show that the known OA models are not responsible. Part of their challenge is to be prepared to widen access further if they discover that doing so will not violate their own high standards.
OA proponents are already taking steps to meet their challenge. Over 800 peer-reviewed OA journals around the world are now finding ways --more than one way-- to provide peer review and open access at the same time. But perhaps they will not survive, or perhaps they do peer review badly or exclude indigent authors. Let's look and see. These are not questions of principle, but observation. Moreover, if longevity is part of a responsible business model, then the observations will take some time. Finally, many journals are experimenting with OA, and finding new variations on older business models that seem to fit their unique circumstances. Letting these experiments run their course will also take time. Meantime, many studies are underway that collect business data from OA journals and subject it to independent analysis.
If non-profit publishers want to know how wide access can be without violating the standards of a responsible business model, then they should welcome the evidence as it emerges. They should welcome the present climate of experimentation. And they should participate in the experiments themselves.
The Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) represents society and non-profit publishers just like those that signed the DC principles. Last year the ALPSP issued a public statement in favor of "maximizing access" to research literature but also expressing doubts about the known OA business models. The solution it called for was not to shun OA but to experiment. Instead of asking its members to wait for others to conduct the experiments and report the results, it called on its members to participate. Moreover, it called on its members to share their business data in an ongoing assessment of the viability of their experiments. Just last week, the ALPSP released its Principles of Scholarship-Friendly Journal Publishing Practice, repeating the goal of maximizing access, repeating the call to experiment, and arguing that OA itself is "in tune with the mission of many learned societies".
Some society publishers are experimenting with alternate business models. For example, the American Society for Cell Biology (not a DC signatory) provides free online access to its journal, _Molecular Biology of the Cell_ (MBC) two months after print publication. In an October 2003 interview in _Open Access Now_, the ASCB Executive Director, Elizabeth Marincola, said, "[N]o publication in the world...can credibly argue that their revenues will be significantly affected if they release their content six months after publication....It is the explicit goal of the society to try to find a way to release MBC without even a two-month delay while retaining our financial base."
Many of the DC signatories provide free online access after a six month embargo period. How many wait even longer? How many are experimenting with shorter embargo periods?
There is one way that society and non-profit publishers could support OA without ceasing to charge subscriptions. They could make it easy for authors to deposit their postprints in OA archives or repositories. If they ask authors to transfer copyright, then as the copyright-holders they could give permission for postprint archiving. Or they could let authors retain copyright so that authors would be free to deposit their postprints without anyone else's permission. The new ALPSP principles find that 60% of society publishers already permit postprint archiving. Moreover, "[a]lthough some speculate that increasing use of OAI-compliant metadata will ultimately enable such posting to undermine subscription and licence income, this does not seem to be the case so far."
Journals could go further and positively encourage postprint archiving. Among others who recommend this strategy is Jim Pitman, Chair of the Publications Committee of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, a society publisher (not a DC signatory).
How many of the DC signatories let authors retain copyright? Why do (about) 40% still not permit postprint archiving? How many are considering an experiment in which they permit it?
Other notable OA experiments by non-profits are taking place at the American Physiological Society and the Company of Biologists (both DC signatories) as well as the American Anthropological Association, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography, and the Entomological Society of America (not DC signatories).
I'd like to know about other experiments, and will do what I can to draw attention to them through my blog and newsletter. And I'd like to know how non-profits assess the pressures of the contemporary journal marketplace. How many feel more threatened by OA than by declining library budgets and the big deal? How many are worrying that journals do not attract members as they once did, especially when potential members have subsidized online access at their institutional desktops? How many see OA as part of a solution to declining memberships and exclusion from the big deal rather than part of the problem? How many are focusing on one OA business model that may not work for them rather than thinking about the range of OA models, the varieties of gradual adoption, and the universe of untried, creative experiments?
My position is no secret. I want OA for all peer-reviewed research articles and their preprints, and I want it without any embargo period. But I also want OA journals to have responsible business models that don't compromise on peer review or exclude indigent authors. I endorse these criteria. But how many signatories of the DC principles would endorse OA if it could be shown that OA journals can meet these criteria? How many care whether existing OA journals already meet them? How many are monitoring experiments to test the viability of OA business models? How many are experimenting themselves?
Learned societies that publish journals are both consumers and producers of science. In this respect, they are like universities and individual scholars, and unlike commercial publishers. This dual interest creates conflicts about goals and priorities for which there is no single or simple solution. As producers of science, society publishers need to cover their costs. As consumers and users of science, they need to contribute to a milieu of barrier-free access and sharing. Or, as businesses representing scientists, they must survive in order to serve their members; but they must ultimately serve their members.
The OA proposition is that there are responsible business models that let publishers do both. If true, then journals can responsibly cover their expenses and still remove access barriers that hinder research. The dual interest of operating a healthy business and serving science does not, by itself, rule out the OA proposition or entail the need to compromise. But is the OA proposition true? That's a matter for investigation, not rejection on principle.
Washington D.C. Principles for Free Access to Science
http://www.dcprinciples.org/statement.htm
Signatories of the DC principles
http://www.dcprinciples.org/signatories.htm
Response to the DC principles from the Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries, American Association of Law Libraries, American Library Association, Association of College & Research Libraries, Association of Research Libraries, Medical Libraries Association, Open Society Institute, Public Knowledge, SPARC, and SPARC Europe
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/613.html
http://www.arl.org/sparc/core/index.asp?page=f79
(Full disclosure: I am affiliated with two of the signatories of this response and participated in its drafting.)
ALPSP statement on open access journal publishing, including a call to experiment
http://www.alpsp.org/news/openaccpositionstatementoct03.pdf
ALPSP call on experimenters to share their business data for analysis
http://www.alpsp.org/2004pdfs/NFPSurvey190204.pdf
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/429.html
ALPSP principles of scholarship-friendly journal publishing practice (released just last week)
http://www.alpsp.org/SFPubpress.htm
http://www.alpsp.org/2004pdfs/SFpub210104.pdf
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2004_03_21_fosblogarchive.html#a108031463701016281
Open Access Now interview with Elizabeth Marincola, Executive Director of the American Society for Cell Biology, October 2003
http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/archive/?page=features&issue=6
Jim Pitman's strategy for open access to society publications, January 28, 2004
http://www.stat.berkeley.edu/users/pitman/strategy.html
Objection-reply: Do journal processing fees exclude the poor? (from SOAN for 11/2/03)
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997177/suber_news67.html#objreply
Objection-reply: Whether the upfront payment model corrupts peer review at open-access journals (from SOAN for 3/2/04)
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997173/suber_news71.html#objreply
What learned societies and non-profit publishers can do to promote open access
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/lists.htm#societies
For news stories on the DC principles, see the Best of the Blog (New Developments) section, below.
* Postscript. At the March 16 press conference announcing the DC principles, Martin Frank of the American Physiological Society emphasized the difference between various forms of "free access", which the principles endorse, and "open access", which the principles do not endorse. Some press and listserv discussions also latched on to the distinction between free and open access, perhaps because it's convenient shorthand for more complex differences of position. Some simply picked up on the word "free" and equated it with "open" despite Frank's attempt to distinguish them.
But the distinction between free and open access is not at stake here, and it only confuses matters to think that it is.
Unfortunately, there are no good short terms for the different positions in this debate. The DC signatories are right to avoid the term "open access" for what they do. But they are also right to say that they offer various forms of "free" online access. They do. But they only offer free access selectively, and this is their point. They offer it (1) to all of their content for some users and (2) to some of their content for all users. It's more precise and less misleading, then, to say that they are distinguishing selective from general free access, or partial from full free access, not "free" from "open" access.
----------
Read this issue online
http://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/3997168/suber_news72.htmlSOAN is published and sponsored by the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC).
http://www.arl.org/sparc/Additional support is provided by Data Conversion Laboratory (DCL), experts in converting research documents to XML.
http://www.dclab.com/public_access.asp
==========
This is the SPARC Open Access Newsletter (ISSN 1546-7821), written by Peter Suber and published by SPARC. The views I express in this newsletter are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of SPARC or other sponsors.
To unsubscribe, send any message (from the subscribed address) to <SPARC-OANews-off@arl.org>.
Please feel free to forward any issue of the newsletter to interested colleagues. If you are reading a forwarded copy, see the instructions for subscribing at either of the next two sites below.
SPARC home page for the Open Access Newsletter and Open Access Forum
http://www.arl.org/sparc/publications/soan
Peter Suber's page of related information, including the newsletter editorial position
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/index.htm
Newsletter, archived back issues
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Forum, archived postings
https://mx2.arl.org/Lists/SOA-Forum/List.html
Conferences Related to the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/conf.htm
Timeline of the Open Access Movement
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm
Open Access Overview
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm
Open Access News blog
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
Peter Suber
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters
peter.suber@earlham.edu
SOAN is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 United States License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/us/
Return to the Newsletter archive