[A2k] INFO: Public supports overhaul of European scientific publication system]

[Michelle Childs]

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: INFO: Public supports overhaul of European scientific publication
system
From:    "Dave Banisar" <banisard@privacy.org>
Date:    Wed, October 11, 2006 3:23 am
To:      ip@tacd.org
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://cordis.europa.eu/fetch?CALLER=3DEN_NEWS&ACTION=3DD&RCN=3D26464&DOC=
=3D2&CAT=3DNEWS&QUERY=3D1160551307503

Public supports overhaul of European scientific publication system
[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 P=F6schl 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
--
-------
David Banisar (d.banisar/at/privacy.org)
Director , FOI Project
Privacy International
London, UK
http://www.privacyinternational.org/


***Please note changed email address ***



--
Michelle Childs -Head of European Affairs
Consumer Project on Technology in London
24, Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX,UK.
Tel:+44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252.
Mob:+44(0)790 386 4642. Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607
http://www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology in Washington, DC
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA .Tel.:
+1.202.332.2670,Fax: +1.202.332.2673

Consumer Project on Technology in Geneva
1 Route des  Morillons, CP 2100, 1211 Geneva 2, Switzerland
Tel: +41 22 791 6727