Journal of Neuro-Ophthalmology, March 2008, Volume 28, Issue 1

Open Access Mandate Threatens Dissemination of Scientific Information

The public good is served when researchers can most easily access current, high-quality research through articles that have undergone rigorous peer review and quality control processes. The free market has allowed researchers excellent access to quality research articles through the investment of societies and commercial publishers in these processes for publication of scholarly journals in a wide variety of specialty and subspecialty areas. Government legislation mandating "open access" to copyrighted articles through a government Web site could result in a reduction of financially sustainable peer-reviewed journals and a reduction in the overall quality of articles available as publishers, societies, and authors are forced to hand over their intellectual property or restrict the peer review process because of lost sales opportunities. The public is best served when the work of researchers advances science to its benefit. If researchers have fewer current resources, diminished quality control, or access to fewer trusted peer-reviewed journals, the public could ultimately lose more than it could gain from open access legislation.

POINT OF VIEW Open Access Mandate Threatens Dissemination of Scientific Information Erin McMullan Abstract: The public good is served when research­ers can most easily access current, high- quality research through articles that have undergone rigorous peer review and quality control processes. The free market has allowed researchers excellent access to quality research articles through the investment of societies and commercial pubhshers in these processes for publication of scholarly journals in a wide variety of specialty and sub­specialty areas. Government legislation mandating " open access" to copyrighted articles through a government Web site could result in a reduction of financially sustainable peer- reviewed journals and a reduction in the overall quality of articles available as publishers, societies, and authors are forced to hand over their intellectual property or restrict the peer review process because of lost sales opportu­nities. The public is best served when the work of researchers advances science to its benefit. If researchers have fewer current resources, diminished quality control, or access to fewer trusted peer-reviewed journals, the public could ultimately lose more than it could gain from open access legislation. (/ Neuro- Ophthalmol 2008; 28: 72- 74) Scientific, technical, and medical ( STM) publishing has a legacy of bringing quality research articles to the public through its own initiative and in partnership with professional societies, editors, authors, and reviewers. Some journals available today have been in continuous publication for more than 100 years. The model works well. Readers want high- quality articles selected by trusted editors and subjected to vigorous peer review, and authors want their articles published in the most respected scholarly journals. Publishers facilitate the numerous processes and tools to bring such journals to the public. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Address correspondence to Erin McMullan, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 530 Walnut St.; Philadelphia, PA 19106; E- mail: Erin. mcmullan ® wolterskluwer. com Publisher investment in electronic tools has allowed dramatic increases in access and functionality for research­ers. Tools now allow complex searches of current material and archives, viewing or printing of full text articles, export of content to other databases or programs, receipt of E- mail alerts when new articles on selected topics are released, and instant links to cited articles. CrossRef ( http:// www. crossref org) is an example of one initiative in which pubhshers have worked together to broaden the impact of technical improvements for the benefit of researchers. More time can be spent analyzing, not gathering, information, with the result that 25% more articles are being accessed per year than in the print- only era ( 1). Investment in online submission systems has opened a floodgate of manuscript submissions globally. As submissions increase, so does the number of articles that are vetted and improved through peer review and ultimately published. It has been estimated that the number of research articles published each year grows by 3%- 4% annually ( 2). Journal customers are typically accessing more articles, as well as non- journal online content such as videos and podcasts. The current model allows for wide distribution of research material through major academic centers, public libraries, state universities, and online databases through subscriptions, society memberships, pay- per- view, and interlibrary loan. In fact, more than 75% of researchers globally indicate that they have greater access to research articles compared with 5 years ago ( 3). Developing countries have also been afforded increased access. In 2002, six publishing companies partnered with the World Health Organization ( WHO) to establish the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative ( HINARI). HINARI enables developing countries to gain free or steeply discounted access to one of the world's largest collections of biomedical and health literature. Over 100 publishers now participate in HINARI, providing more than 3,750 journal titles to 2,500 universities, hospitals, medical schools, and research institutes in 109 countries ( 4). Thanks to the digitalization of publishing systems, libraries now pay less per journal and per article than in the past through new licensing alternatives, consortia buying, and volume discounting. Yet budget constraints still pose 72 J Neuro- Ophthalmol, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008 Open Access: Publisher's View J Neuro- Ophthalmol, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008 limits to acquisitions and librarians must choose among purchasing options and from the wealth of publications available in the market. Although this is a normal free market dilemma, librarians understandably want access to as many articles as possible. In answer to this challenge, the American Library Association has supported " open access" legislation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ( HR 2764, § 218) ( 5), signed into law by President Bush on December 26, 2007 ( 6), mandates that the National Institutes of Health ( NIH) require all NIH- funded inves­tigators to submit, upon acceptance for publication, an electronic version of their final peer- reviewed manuscripts. The manuscripts will be made accessible, free of charge, to the public no later than 12 months after the official date of publication on PubMed Central. Also stipulated is that this mandate be consistent with copyright law. However, there is an inherent violation of copyright in mandating the deposit of the publisher's copyrighted articles in an online government site for worldwide distribution. Unlike the NIH policy of voluntary sub­mission, this mandate requires that the NIH force authors and publishers to forfeit their copyright without compen­sation for their investment. The bill specifically requires that the manuscripts be final peer- reviewed articles that have been accepted for publication in scholarly journals. Peer- reviewed and accepted articles have benefited from significant investment by the publisher, including submission through publisher-developed online tools, manuscript evaluation, the exper­tise of editors and reviewers, and the processes and tools used to manage peer review, accept the article, and obtain copyright. Moreover, the congressional bill sets a dangerous precedent in the eroding of intellectual property protection in the United States. It singles out manuscripts of peer-reviewed STM journals and works counter to its own tradition of enacting laws and international agreements meant to protect against piracy. Publishers who have invested in the protection of their intellectual property ( passwords and user names, contracts, monitoring of online blogs to uncover misuse, and working through the American Association of Publishers [ AAP] and Software and Information Industry Association to combat piracy worldwide) will essentially lose the very core of copyright protection under the law- their exclusive right to reproduce and distribute copyrighted material. Publishers will then be left without the ability to protect their content against misappropriation when the government essentially has it " sitting on the shelf" for anyone, anywhere, to download and disseminate at will. Protection of these articles is the protection of a successful system of scientific dissemination. Through an undistorted free market, publishers and societies have launched, sustained, and made widely available the esteemed scholarly journals the NIH would depend on to provide final peer- reviewed articles. As in any market, the profits earned serve as a motivator for the quality and innovation that the researcher- customer demands. Government interference on the premise that legis­lating open access is beneficial to the advancement of scholarly research and, by extension, the public good, is misguided in the opinion of many. The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science and Medicine, " The Prism Coalition" ( http:// www. prismcoalition. org) was formed to educate policy makers and the public about risks of government intervention in scholarly publishing. Open access that provides free availability of significant proportions of a journal's content may result in its cancellation and therefore undermine and destroy the peer review system upon which researchers and society depend. With the knowledge that virtually the same content will appear online free of charge, subscribers may choose to " wait it out" rather than to pay for the most up- to- date information. The result could limit the ability of commer­cial publishers to publish some of the journals that evaluate and review the articles. Not- for- profit learned societies who provide journal subscriptions as a primary member benefit or depend on subscription revenue to support their journals and overall mission are threatened for the same reason. Researchers, especially in small subspecialty areas, could ultimately lose these valuable resources. Another possible implication is that journals may no longer be willing to review and accept articles with unsustainable terms attached. Acknowledging that the peer review system is integral to quality research articles, the NIH states: " Peer review is a hallmark of quality for journals and is vital for validating the accuracy and interpretation of research results" ( 7). If that system is undermined through government interference, researchers would lose a valuable resource in assessing article quality. Further, per- article and per- journal prices could increase as publishers necessarily seek to offset loss of revenue due to content released through the NIH. This may force librarians to give up journals, especially smaller niche journals, canceling paid subscriptions with current content to wait for its free release after 12 months. As a result, fewer current articles could be available upon initial publication to the researchers who need them. The negative impact of this loss would make the legislation counterproductive to the cause of advancement of scholarly research. The public good is served when researchers can most easily access current, high- quality articles that have been through a rigorous process of peer review in a wide variety of specialty and subspecialty areas. Government legisla­tion mandating open access through a government Web site will, it is feared, result in a reduction of sustainable 73 J Neuro- Ophthalmol, Vol. 28, No. 1, 2008 McMullan peer- reviewed journals and a reduction in overall quality as publishers, societies, and authors are forced to hand over their intellectual property or restrict the peer review process. The public is served when the work of the researchers advances science. If researchers have fewer current resources, diminished quality, or fewer peer-reviewed journals to aid in the advancement of science, the public will lose a valuable resource. REFERENCES 1. Tenopir C. Discovering the magic: faculty and student use of electronic journals. Available at: http:// web. utk. edu/~ tenopir/ speeches/ msu_ nasig_ 05_ 2004. ppt. Last accessed September 20, 2007. 2. Library Journal Academic Newswire. That time of year: Elsevier announces its annual price increase. July 10, 2007. Available at: http:// www. libraryjournal. com/ info/ ca6458898. html? nid= 2673. Last accessed July 10, 2007. 3. Rowlands I, Nicholas D, Huntingdon P. Scholarly communication in the digital environment: what do authors want? London: Centre for Information Behavior and the Evaluation of Research, Department of Information Science: March 18, 2004. Available at: http:// www. ucl. ac. uk/ ciber/ ciber- pa- report. pdf. Last accessed December 19, 2007. 4. Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative. Available at: http:// www. who. int/ hinari/ en/. Last accessed: May 18, 2007. 5. The Library of Congress. Thomas H. R. 2764. Available at: http:// thomas. loc. gov/ cgj- bin/ bdquery/ z? dll0: h. r. 2764. Last accessed: January 8, 2008. 6. Bush GW. President Bush signs H. R. 2764 into law. Available at: http :// www. whitehouse. gov/ news/ releases/ 2007/ 12/ 20071226- 1 . html. Last accessed: January 7, 2008. 7. National Institutes of Health, Office of Extramural Research. How does the NIH public access policy differ from the data sharing requirement? Available at: http:// publicaccess. nih. gov/ publicaccess_ qanda. htm# q9. Last accessed July 10, 2007. 74 © 2008 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins