A toenail in the door

Scientists live to publish. But the journal publishers need the revolution promised by open access, argues Vivienne Parry

There's a touch of Through the Looking Glass about scientific publishing. In this topsy-turvy world, publishers obtain research results for nothing, have them refereed for nothing, print them in their journal and then - and this is sheer genius - sell the journal (for an arm and a leg) to the institution where the research took place. Make that several legs.

The taxpayer or charity donor who footed the research bill can't see what they've paid for unless they too cross the publisher's palm with silver. That can't be right. Nor can it be right that publishers retain copyright on work that should belong to the author. This pernicious system creates knowledge paupers because new knowledge is only available to those with the cash to access it. And the knock on is that grant applications or submitted papers from the developing world are likely to fail, simply because they fail to cite recent research.

Now there is a clamour for open access, where the cost of publishing is transferred from buyer to author, something made possible by the internet. The suggestion is that authors pay per page - in fact, this already happens. Current journals cheekily insist on substantial "page charges" for anything fancy or long. Pardon?

Conventional science publishing is hugely profitable with admitted margins of 40% although insiders mutter that, for some journals, it is much more. With gold like that at the end of the rainbow, everyone's doing it. About 16,000 journals are published each year in science, technology and medicine. The average yearly cost of a science journal is £644. And one is never enough. The information you need may be scattered across 40 journals. The average university library spends 50% of its budget on journals.

There are some 2,000 publishers - from tiny learned societies to huge not-for-profit organisations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), which publishes Science. But the market is dominated by the commercial groups, such as Reed Elsevier, Springer and Swets Blackwell.

Why aren't scientists bitching about this? First, because they are reluctant to change a system that has underpinned science since the 17th century. But there's a more fundamental reason.

Scientists live to publish. Papers are not just sources of information. They are adverts. Without them, a scientist cannot obtain tenure or promotion, a grant or a new job. If you work in toenail science and the key journal in your field is the International Journal of Toenail Clippings, that's the journal you have to have, and the one you have to publish in, no matter what the cost (which rarely comes from your own pocket). In the vernacular, it's called "having one over a barrel".

The arrival of electronic publishing has shown science how it could be - how it ought to be. An open letter from the Public Library of Science (a US open access initiative, which commits to only publish in journals that make content freely available after six months), has now been signed by 40,000 scientists. There are calls for central archives. BioMed Central, the first for-profit open access publisher, has opened for business.

The publishers, no doubt acutely aware of what Napster did to CD sales, have introduced a number of electronic access initiatives - such as Science Direct from Elsevier. My prediction is that there will be some nasty turf wars over access to search engines and archives over the next five years.

If I were one of the big publishers, I would be developing amazing access services, for a reasonable fee, which will make learned bodies' journal access look tawdry, sending them running into my open jaws. But most of all I'd be relying on scientists continuing to place their adverts with the journals that count, no matter what they cost to buy.

There are issues on costs and there will be a messy, sometimes bloody, interregnum as science publishing moves to a predominantly open access model. The most plaintive squeaks will come from the learned bodies, which will point to the fine initiatives, such as junior fellowships, made possible by their journal income. The best will develop other revenue streams, the worst will go to the wall. They should recall why they exist. To purvey science. To everyone.

The reaction of research funders, which will have to fund an estimated 1% cost increase, is key. The mighty Wellcome Trust has already committed itself to open access and the research charities are bound to follow for they recognise the bang for buck they're getting for their supporters. The concept of a copy for the taxpayer is a compelling one. Science should embrace it wholeheartedly.

Today's best video

Today in pictures

More from Last word