| | |
A recent report by the European Commission calling for reforms in the scientific publishing system joins a chorus of critics on both sides of the Atlantic. Interest in reforming scientific publishing is being driven by high journals prices and frustration that the internet has not significantly improved the dissemination of scientific knowledge.
While the report is critical of scientific journal publishers, it really takes aim at the whole system of funding and research that tends to force researchers to publish in journals that are available only by subscription, many costing thousands of dollars a year. The report notes that more than just posing a financial burden, high journal prices inhibit the dissemination of knowledge and scientific progress. It recommends that funding agencies promote greater public access to research, as the National Institutes of Health have done in the US. Such moves could include requiring that articles resulting from public funding be deposited in open repositories, regardless of whether they are published in journals. The study notes that commercial publishers charge significantly higher prices than non-profit publishers and, further, that publishers with larger portfolios of journals tend to charge more. The study also recommends that education and research funding organizations foster new forms of scholarly dissemination, such as open access journals, and new business models, such as those in which publishers charge authors publication fees, rather than charging users for subscriptions.
One of the study’s more innovative suggestions is that quality measures for journals be extended beyond citation counts (the number of times a journal’s articles are cited within other articles). For example, quality ratings could take into account a publication’s dissemination policies, such as whether authors are allowed to deposit articles in open archives and retain copyright. In the US, issues surrounding the funding and dissemination of research continue to be a hot topic within major research institutions, government agencies, and Congress.
| |  |
