[ox-en] Public supports overhaul of European scientific publication system
- From: Soenke Zehle <soenke.zehle web.de>
- Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:24:24 +0200
Public supports overhaul of European scientific publication system
<http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&RCN=26464&DOC=2&CAT=NEWS&QUERY=1160551307503>
[Date: 2006-10-09]
Participants in a public consultation have reacted positively overall to
proposals made by the European Commission to overhaul the scientific
publication system in Europe. However, some caution was expressed by
publishers, who questioned the need for change to the existing system.
A total of 174 stakeholders responded to the Commission's 'study on the
economic and technical evolution of scientific publication markets',
which marked the start of an open policy debate on access to, quality
and preservation of scientific publications in Europe.
The proposal that generated the most interest was that of guaranteeing
access to results of publicly-funded scientific research. Many
respondents equated public access with open access, which in turn is
equated by some with moving forward. As Nobel Prize-winner Richard J.
Roberts writes in his contribution, 'open access is the only model of
the future and the debate should be how we can get there as quickly as
possible'.
Several research organisations describe ways in which they are already
supporting access to the research they fund. Of the various possible
forms of public access, strongest support is reserved for the deposit of
journal articles in repositories. For example, the European Organisation
for Nuclear Research (CERN) supports 'ensuring immediate deposit in
repositories and encouraging interoperability', believing that 'digital
repositories for scientific information will constitute the
corner-stones in the future eScience framework'.
On the issue of placing a time embargo on public access to research
results, respondents' opinions vary, some making the case for a delay,
with others pressing for immediate access.
While the majority are in favour of public access, some respondents,
mainly publishers, voiced caution, arguing that open access would
jeopardise the income of existing publishing houses, which disseminate
research through subscriptions. Others argued that there is no active
demand for a public access model; it would only go to undermine learned
societies to science, and lead to additional public expenditure. They
further underline that change to a system that functions well is
unnecessary and that rapid change may have an impact on the current
research dissemination system
Responding to the study's recommendation on creating a level playing
field in terms of publishing business models, several major publishers
refer to trials they are currently undertaking based upon an
'authorchoice' model, combining articles funded by publication charges
with articles funded by subscriptions. Other respondents from library
and information organisations say that the Commission could support the
recommendation in discussions with Member States, encouraging national
research funding agencies to identify funds for the payment of open
access publication charges. The clear identification of funds for this
purpose could ease publisher concerns about the future viability of
their business and help to create a 'level-playing field', they say.
On issues related to quality, most respondents are in agreement with the
need for quality control, but disagree on the means by which it should
be measured, expressed and ensured. Those who caution against changes to
the existing quality assurance system as outlined in the Commission's
study underline the value added by publishers in the certification
process. As the UK Publishers Association points out, 'a reputation for
quality and prestige in a journal takes years, even decades to establish'.
Conversely, those respondents who support change in the present
publishing system are also those who support changes in the ways in
which research quality is certified, while still supporting the
importance of procedures to ensure quality. Dr Ulrich Pöschl of the
European Geosciences Union states: 'the traditional forms of closed peer
review and publication are insufficient for quality assurance in today's
highly diverse and rapidly evolving world of science.'
Respondents also gave their feedback regarding preservation, with the
majority stating that it should also be linked to free access and that
collaboration between stakeholders is essential.
Underlying issues of access, quality and preservation are differing
views on the role of public bodies. While some respondents express alarm
at what they see as the study's goal to squarely position the state as
the primary gatekeeper of scientific information, other respondents
agree that each country should have responsibility for making research
output widely available.
Several respondents see this responsibility in a European context. The
Italian universities represented in CIBER call for 'a clear statement on
the public, and therefore [EU] Commission, concern and responsibility
for production, dissemination and preservation of culture and science',
a call which resonates with the Dutch organisation SURF's suggestion of
a 'European Charter on open access to publicly funded knowledge',
complementing the Bologna charter on higher education.
Regarding the role of the Commission in the preservation of scientific
publications specifically, several stakeholders underline the
opportunity and need for a common coherent approach by the
Directorate-Generals Research and Information Society and Media. They
point to the linkages that could be made between the study's
recommendations and the i2010 Digital Libraries Initiative.
Looking to the future, many respondents back the areas identified in the
study for further investigation: the evolution of copyright provisions,
economic analysis of alternative form of dissemination, and
technological development.
Finally, on the recommendation to establish an advisory committee,
opinions diverged as to its mandate. Those who support the study see the
committee as an action-based group, taking the study's recommendations
forward, while those who were critical of the study see the committee as
a forum for further discussion.
Based on the study and ensuing public consultation, the
Directorate-Generals Research and Information Society and Media will
prepare a joint communication on access to and dissemination of
scientific information, to be published in December 2006. The aim will
be to initiate discussion and debate within the Council of Ministers and
at Member State level. A conference addressing scientific publication
issues will take place on 15 and 16 February in Brussels.
For more information, please visit:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society
Related stories: 25437
Category: General policy
Data Source Provider: European Commission
Document Reference: Based on information from the European Commission
Programme or Service Acronym: FP6-SOCIETY, FP6-STRUCTURING, FRAMEWORK 6C
Subject Index: Information, Media; Information Processing, Information
Systems; Policies; Reference Materials; Scientific Research
RCN: 26464
_________________________________
Web-Site: http://www.oekonux.org/
Organization: http://www.oekonux.de/projekt/
Contact: projekt oekonux.de