Open-access stakeholders make their case to White House

Universities, libraries, and scholarly publishers have staked out a spectrum of positions in response to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy’s request for information (RFI) on options for increasing public access to the products of federally funded research. The respondents broadly agree on the goal of increasing access. But some argue that the time is ripe for a paradigm shift in scholarly communication, whereas others maintain it is prudent to expand and experiment with existing open-access models.

OSTP released the RFI in February following a strong reaction from stakeholder groups to reports of an impending executive order that would require papers produced from federally funded research to be made freely available upon publication. Under the current policy , issued by OSTP in 2013, such papers must be made freely available after a 12-month embargo period. The RFI, which closed this month, sought input on how the US research enterprise could benefit from “immediate access” to research publications, data, and code, though it did not refer to any potential action.

In parallel, OSTP has also held a series of closed-door stakeholder meetings. The most recent (that it has publicized) was a 30 April meeting with representatives from publishers, universities, libraries, and funding institutions along with scholarly communication researchers. OSTP has not disclosed who has participated in any of the stakeholder meetings. A spokesperson for the office did indicate, though, that it plans to eventually post the RFI submissions it has received.

Universities and libraries protest publication costs

Submissions from associations representing research libraries and universities stress the barriers imposed by high paywalls. In a joint response , the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities call for a shift to new scholarly communication approaches, citing the “excessive subscription costs” under existing publication models. Suggested approaches include “peer-review managed by scholarly societies or other self-organized and proven models that ensure the quality of research articles at reasonable costs,” they write.

However, the associations caution it will take time to change university practices and academic culture. “Moving too quickly to implement new government-wide public access policies could have a damaging, as opposed to positive, effect on universities’ ability to conduct and effectively disseminate new scientific knowledge generated by their faculty and students,” they add.

The Association of Research Libraries , which represents libraries at 124 institutions in North America, offers more extensive criticism of the existing publishing ecosystem, stating that even the most well-resourced libraries have not been able to cover subscription cost increases without paring back parts of their collections. It also laments that the current system incentivizes researchers to publish in high-impact journals, many of which are operated by for-profit entities, and that authors are “often compelled to sign over their copyrights to these journals, which places limitations on how digital copies can be shared or used.”

Accordingly, the association argues, “It is time for a new paradigm for scholarly publishing in which the content of scientific outputs is freely and immediately accessible, multiple stakeholders contribute to the sustainability of open infrastructure elements, and publishers charge for specialized services.” A new model would entail “rapid dissemination and experimentation with faster and more efficient peer review, including post-publication, open peer review, and more.”

Other respondents also calling for significant shifts away from the current publishing paradigm include the Coalition of Open Access Policy Institutions and the Open Research Funders Group .

Scientific societies urge caution

The journal-publishing arm of the American Institute of Physics , the American Astronomical Society , the American Geophysical Union , and the American Association for the Advancement of Science are among the nonprofit scientific society publishers that have posted their responses. The submissions highlight the societies’ current support for a variety of open-access models , such as “gold” open-access journals, through which authors pay article-processing charges to make their papers freely available upon publication. The societies also comment on the complementary roles of preprints, which provide immediate free access, and the final versions of papers, which benefit from investments in peer review and curation by publishers.

(Disclosure: Physics Today is published by the American Institute of Physics, a nonprofit federation of scientific societies. AIP is partially supported by revenue generated from AIP Publishing, a wholly owned but independently operated subsidiary that produces scientific and scholarly journals.)

For instance, AIP Publishing notes that preprint sites such as arXiv are a well-established mechanism to quickly communicate results in the physics community. It suggests that OSTP consider pursuing a “preprint first” approach, in which federal agencies would require that preprints ultimately be submitted to an appropriate repository: “Preprints would then provide immediate access to research results while supporting peer-reviewed journals to fulfill their role of registration, certification, dissemination, and preservation.” It suggests that approach is “more sustainable” than eliminating the embargo period. More generally, AIP Publishing requests that OSTP commission an independent assessment of the costs and benefits of the 2013 policy that established the 12-month embargo period.

AAS (an AIP member society) raises concerns that moving to a zero-embargo policy would place financial pressure on authors, with journals having to increase article charges to offset lost subscription revenue. It suggests this could disadvantage US authors relative to those from countries that subsidize publishers or pay publication fees using government resources.

Cautioning against a uniform approach, AAS adds, “Different scientific disciplines have different, long-standing cultures of scholarship and sharing, and we trust that OSTP will not apply blanket, one-size-fits-all policies that may address perceived problems in one area of science (e.g., biomedical) to the detriment of other areas of science (e.g., physics).”

Trade group denounces potential market intervention

The Association of American Publishers , which represents a mix of commercial and nonprofit publishers, argues forcefully against eliminating the embargo period. It writes that “such regulatory intrusions would significantly disrupt scholarly communication by rendering irrelevant the copyright protection that lies at the heart of marketplace incentives, investments, and transactions that drive the economy.”

The association maintains that the federal government’s promise of copyright protection on “value-added” research products incentivizes private sector investments in high-quality, peer-reviewed publications. It notes that several Republican members of Congress have raised objections to requiring immediate free access, including Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC). He argued in a 17 April letter that such a move would “set a dangerous precedent for American intellectual property rights in private sector–produced downstream products.”

The association also questions the advisability of the government assuming a share of the publication costs, writing that it was “deeply troubled by a recent suggestion that the government could replace the private sector and fund the peer review and publication of articles discussing federally funded research for approximately $100 million in additional government spending per year.” It counters that the amount required is more likely to be in the range of $600 million to $1.4 billion. The letter does not cite a source for the $100 million figure, though Science magazine reports that OSTP staff raised it in one of the stakeholder meetings.

More broadly, the association joins others in opposing a one-size-fits-all framework that, it argues, would “force all publishers into one business model that may work for some author and reader communities, but not for others.” As an alternative, it urges OSTP to pursue a policy that encourages “increased free access to articles by supporting voluntary initiatives—coupled with dedicated appropriated funds—to enable more authors to participate in the many open access publishing options offered in the marketplace.”

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from a 22 May post on FYI, which reports on federal science policy. Both FYI and Physics Today are published by the American Institute of Physics.