[Ecommerce] Provosts letter in support of the Federal Public Research Access Act

[Manon Ress]

http://insidehighered.com/news/2006/07/28/provosts

Rallying Behind Open Access
If universities pay the salaries of researchers and provide them with
labs, and the federal government provides those researchers with
grants for their studies, why should those same universities feel
they can=92t afford to have access to research findings?
That=92s part of the argument behind a push by some in Congress to make
such findings widely available at no charge. The Federal Public
Research Access Act would require federal agencies to publish their
findings, online and free, within six months of their publication
elsewhere. Proponents of the legislation, including many librarians
and professors frustrated by skyrocketing journal prices, see such
=93open access=94 as entirely fair. But publishers =97 including many
scholarly associations =97 have attacked the bill, warning that it
could endanger research and kill off many journals.

In an attempt to refocus the debate, the provosts of 25 top
universities are jointly releasing an open letter that strongly backs
the bill and encourages higher education to prepare for a new way of
disseminating research findings. =93Widespread public dissemination
levels the economic playing field for researchers outside of well-
funded universities and research centers and creates more
opportunities for innovation. Ease of access and discovery also
encourages use by scholars outside traditional disciplinary
communities, thus encouraging imaginative and productive scholarly
convergence,=94 the provosts write.

While the letter acknowledges that the bill would force publishers
and scholarly societies to consider potentially significant changes
in their operations, the provosts conclude that the legislation =93is
good for education and good for research.=94

The letter originated with the provosts of the Committee on
Institutional Cooperation, which includes the universities of the Big
Ten Conference plus the University of Chicago. Others joining the
effort include the provosts of such institutions as Dartmouth
College, Harvard University, Texas A&M University, the University of
California, the University of Rochester, Vanderbilt University, and
Washington University in St. Louis.

=93I think the provosts are concerned that our scientists are doing
important research, and their fields demand that they publish the
research in highly respected journals, and then those journals become
more and more expensive and control information in a way that is
worrisome,=94 said R. Michael Tanner, provost and vice chancellor for
academic affairs of the University of Illinois at Chicago and one of
those who worked on the letter. When universities can=92t afford to
keep all of their subscriptions, universities face the prospect that
their own faculty members can=92t read the findings of fellow faculty
members =97 even when taxpayers paid for the research.

=93At a certain point, we can=92t be held prisoner within the publication
system,=94 Tanner said.

Tanner said he was worried about how the changes already taking place
in publishing =97 and those that could potentially take place because
of this legislation =97 would affect small publishers. But he said that
the reality was that larger publishers were making large profits off
universities like his.

Barbara Allen, director of the Committee on Institutional
Cooperation, said that she hoped the open letter would reshape the
debate on open access. =93The public debate on these issues seems to be
driven by the commercial publishing sector, and the scholarly
publishers were lining up with the commercial sector,=94 she said. The
provosts wanted to make clear to Congress and others that =93our needs
as communities of scholars=94 aren=92t necessarily the same as those of
large commercial publishers.

It=92s not at all clear that the legislation will go anywhere this
year, with Congress already headed into pre-election season and
debates over scholarly publishing not exactly competing with Iraq or
the economy for voters=92 attention. But the proposal is almost sure to
return next year =97 and the provosts=92 action marks a shift of sorts
for academic leaders. Scholarly associations (many of which depend
for their budgets on journal sales) have been against these kinds of
changes =97 even as more and more of their members demand free, online
access for information. The groups that represent colleges have also
been less than enthusiastic about this push. The Association of
American Universities =97 which includes most of the institutions whose
provosts signed the open letter =97 hasn=92t taken a position on the
bill, and officials say that they see both benefits and problems with
the legislation.

While the provosts don=92t claim the legislation is perfect, they want
university leaders to be decidedly on the =93open access=94 side of the
debate.

Not surprisingly, publishers are not pleased by this turn of events.

Alan Adler, vice president for legal and government affairs of the
Association of American Publishers, said =93what the university
community is excited about is the prospect of being able to get
access to all this published material free online, which is not
terribly surprising. But why should universities be excited about the
government inserting itself into the process of providing access to
research?=94

Adler said that there are all kinds of dangers behind the concept. He
said that the cost to federal research agencies might be so high that
it would take money from research. He said that the government might
not create good databases. He said that the government might lose
interest in the databases, after their creation undercuts the
subscription models of existing journals and potentially forces some
of them out of business.

He noted that for many scholarly groups, journal subscription fees
finance a range of activities beyond the journals themselves=97 and he
wondered how those fees would be affected if many people felt no need
to subscribe.

The provosts=92 letter acknowledges that a new system could involve
real change for journals, which play a vital role in scholarship. The
push for open access, the letter says, is a =93challenge to us all to
think about how best to align the intellectual and economic models
for scholarly publishing with the needs of contemporary scholarship
and the benefits, including low marginal costs of distribution, of
network technology.=94 If the bill becomes law, the provosts say, they
will work with publishers to help deal with any problems.

Tanner of the Illinois-Chicago said that he was worried about small
publishers and that universities =93may have take steps to make sure
publications continue.=94 But he also noted that many smaller journals
are losing subscriptions already =97 and that universities already
can=92t afford to provide access to every journal a faculty member
might want.

Some observers say that the provosts=92 letter reflects what may be an
immediate impact of the legislative proposal =97 even if it moves
nowhere this year. John C. Vaughn, executive vice president of the
Association of American Universities, said that based on his
discussions with publishers, =93absent some pressure like this
legislation, they=92d probably keep doing business as usual.=94 The
provosts who are backing the bill are sending a message to publishers
=93to think harder about how to make things work in a new way,=94 he said.

=97 Scott Jaschik

************************************************
Manon Anne Ress
manon.ress@cptech.org,
www.cptech.org

Consumer Project on Technology
1621 Connecticut Ave, NW, Washington, DC 20009 USA
Tel.:  +1.202.332.2670, Ext 16 Fax: +1.202.332.2673

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

Consumer Project on Technology
24 Highbury Crescent, London, N5 1RX, UK
Tel: +44(0)207 226 6663 ex 252 Fax: +44(0)207 354 0607