Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and why we need internet‐era transformation of scholarly communications

Progress to open access (OA) has stalled, with perhaps 20% of new papers ‘born‐free’, and half of all versions of record pay‐walled; why? In this paper, I review the last 12 months: librarians showing muscle in negotiations, publishers’ Read and Publish deals, and funders determined to force change with initiatives like Plan S. I conclude that these efforts will not work. For example, flipping to supply‐side business models, such as article processing charges, simply flips the pay‐wall to a ‘play‐wall’ to the disadvantage of authors without financial support. I argue that the focus on OA makes us miss the bigger problem: today’s scholarly communications is unaffordable with today’s budgets. OA is not the problem, the publishing process is the problem. To solve it, I propose using the principles of digital transformation to reinvent publishing as a two‐step process where articles are published first as preprints, and then, journal editors invite authors to submit only papers that ‘succeed’ to peer review. This would reduce costs significantly, opening a sustainable pathway for scholarly publishing and OA. The catalyst for this change is for the reputation economy to accept preprints as it does articles in minor journals today.

[1]  Casey S Greene,et al.  Sci-Hub provides access to nearly all scholarly literature , 2018, eLife.

[2]  A. O'brien,et al.  How to Succeed in Business: Lessons from the Struggle Between Ford and General Motors during the 1920s and 1930s , 2003 .

[3]  Rita Pinhasi,et al.  The weakest link – workflows in open access agreements: the experience of the Vienna University Library and recommendations for future negotiations , 2018 .

[4]  B. Björk,et al.  ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[5]  Holly Else,et al.  Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions , 2018, Nature.

[6]  Joseph J. Esposito Open Access 2.0: Access to Scholarly Publications Moves to a New Phase , 2008 .

[7]  Jeffrey K. MacKie-Mason Electronic Scientific, Technical, and Medical Journal Publishing and Its Implications , 2004 .

[8]  Martijn Arns,et al.  Open access is tiring out peer reviewers , 2014, Nature.

[9]  Jennifer E. Rowley,et al.  Academics’ attitudes towards peer review in scholarly journals and the effect of role and discipline , 2018, J. Inf. Sci..

[10]  Melinda Baldwin,et al.  Scientific Autonomy, Public Accountability, and the Rise of “Peer Review” in the Cold War United States , 2018, Isis.

[11]  P. Davis Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership—retrospective cohort analysis , 2013, FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

[12]  M. Way,et al.  The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , 2013, Journal of Cell Science.

[13]  K. Geschuhn Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access: A Max Planck Digital Library Open Access Policy White Paper , 2015 .

[14]  R. Cagan The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , 2013, Disease Models & Mechanisms.

[15]  Toby Green,et al.  We've failed: Pirate black open access is trumping green and gold and we must change our approach , 2017, Learn. Publ..

[16]  L. Laursen If At First You Don't Succeed, Cool Off, Revise, and Submit Again , 2008 .

[17]  Juan Pablo Alperin,et al.  How significant are the public dimensions of faculty work in review, promotion and tenure documents? , 2019, eLife.

[18]  Michael Mabe,et al.  What Journal Authors Want: Ten Years of Results from Elsevier's Author Feedback Programme , 2011 .

[19]  W. Chan Diagnosis of venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. , 2017, Thrombosis research.

[20]  Stephen Curry Let's move beyond the rhetoric: it's time to change how we judge research. , 2018 .

[21]  C. Price The Psychology of Change Management , 2010 .

[22]  Ralf Schimmer,et al.  Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access , 2015 .

[23]  Julian K. Ayeh,et al.  “Do We Believe in TripAdvisor?” Examining Credibility Perceptions and Online Travelers’ Attitude toward Using User-Generated Content , 2013 .

[24]  H. Jamali Copyright compliance and infringement in ResearchGate full-text journal articles , 2017, Scientometrics.

[25]  Jyrki Ilva Looking for commitment: Finnish Open Access journals, infrastructure and funding , 2017 .

[26]  Yanchao Li,et al.  Open access publications in sciences and social sciences: A comparative analysis , 2018, Learn. Publ..

[27]  Serhat Kurt,et al.  Why do authors publish in predatory journals? , 2018, Learn. Publ..

[28]  Maurits van der Graaf PAYING FOR OPEN ACCESS: THE AUTHOR'S PERSPECTIVE , 2017 .

[29]  Editage Insights Most common reasons for journal rejection , 2013 .

[30]  Michaela Willi-Hooper,et al.  Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science , 2017 .

[31]  S. Rumsey Discussion Paper: Help! I'm an author - get me out of here , 2018 .

[32]  Richard van Noorden Science journals end open-access trial with Gates Foundation , 2018, Nature.

[33]  Jonathan A. Obar,et al.  The biggest lie on the Internet: ignoring the privacy policies and terms of service policies of social networking services , 2018, Information, Communication & Society.

[34]  J. Bosman,et al.  Open access levels: a quantitative exploration using Web of Science and oaDOI data , 2018 .

[35]  Ludmila Schneider,et al.  Pharmacovigilance within Technic Solutions , 2018 .

[36]  G. Chan Scholarly Communication at the Crossroad: From subscription to Open Access? , 2017 .

[37]  Matthijs van Otegem,et al.  Five principles to navigate a bumpy golden road towards open access , 2018 .

[38]  Derek Pyne The Rewards of Predatory Publications at a Small Business School , 2017 .

[39]  F. Galindo-Rueda,et al.  Drivers and Implications of Scientific Open Access Publishing: Findings from a Pilot OECD International Survey of Scientific Authors , 2016 .

[40]  Dahlia Remler,et al.  Are 90% of academic papers really never cited? Reviewing the literature on academic citations.. , 2014 .

[41]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Evidence of Open Access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: a large-scale analysis , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[42]  G. Meijer,et al.  What’s the big DEAL and why is it so difficult to reach? Nick Fowler and Gerard Meijer on the future of Open Access in Germany , 2018 .

[43]  R. Raju From green to gold to diamond: open access’s return to social justice , 2017 .

[44]  Heather A. Piwowar,et al.  The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles , 2018, PeerJ.

[45]  M. Eve Transparency agendas are being used to legislate against consortial open-access models even though it has good cost outcomes , 2018 .

[46]  Rob Johnson,et al.  Adoption of open access is rising - but so too are its costs , 2018 .

[47]  J. Beall What I learned from predatory publishers , 2017, Biochemia Medica.

[48]  S. Sethi,et al.  (2, 2) geometry from gauge theory , 2018, Journal of High Energy Physics.

[49]  Jop Vrieze,et al.  Open-access journal editors resign after alleged pressure to publish mediocre papers , 2018, Science.

[50]  S. Priyadarshini India targets universities in predatory-journal crackdown , 2018, Nature.

[51]  Thierry Lafouge,et al.  French publishing attitudes in the open access era: The case of mathematics, biology, and computer science , 2018, Learn. Publ..

[52]  R. Lawrence,et al.  Towards an open science publishing platform , 2016, F1000Research.

[53]  Tom Sheldon,et al.  Preprints could promote confusion and distortion , 2018, Nature.

[54]  T. Green We’re Still Failing to Deliver Open Access and Solve the Serials Crisis: To Succeed We Need a Digital Transformation of Scholarly Communication Using Internet-Era Principles , 2018 .