Open access: publishing future or finale?

Ear, Nose & Throat Journal, August, 2004 by Robert T. Sataloff

Since the first printing press was invented, the business of publication has been in a constant state of evolution. The cyberspace revolution has created some particularly challenging opportunities and debates. Foremost at the present time is the "open-access" issue.

Proponents of open-access publication believe that all scientific information should be available to the scientific community at no charge. Harold E. Varmus, president.

and CEO of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, is one of the most outspoken leaders of this movement. He and other open-access advocates support creation of online journals that charge no subscription fee. Rather, they charge authors a publication fee, usually between $500 and $1,500. One might assume that such fees provided by authors would be sufficient to sustain these journals. However, this incorrect assumption is one of several issues in the paradigm that warrant closer scrutiny.

First, although $500 to $1,500 fees may not be onerous to biomedical researchers publishing grant-supported research (especially when the grants include publication funds), such fees may be difficult for many residents, practitioners in the United States who are prolific authors and, particularly, authors in countries in which medicine produces little (if any) excess income. Second, even advocates of open-access journals recognize that publishing an article on the Internet costs about $3,750 (according to the Open Society Institution). They argue that the deficit of $2,000 to $3,000 per article can be subsidized through charitable contributions and sponsorships. However, if open access were utilized for all scientific articles, a subsidy of approximately 2 to 3 billion dollars per year would be required (personal communication, Regina Klein, Elsevier Publications, March 2004). It is hard to imagine how such a model could be sustainable.

How did this idea become prominent? As economic pressures have affected medicine and biomedical academia, they have also affected medical publishing. The response of traditional publishers has not always been above contention. In many cases, price inflation for indispensable journals has been (arguably) unreasonable. Some libraries have had to pay more than $20,000 a year for selected journals (Brain Research costs more than $21,000; Nuclear Physics A and B costs $23,000--and there are others). Neither individuals nor libraries can sustain spiraling subscription costs indefinitely. However, commercial and nonprofit publishers have also made substantial contributions to scientific advancement. Publishers have supported new research, launched journals in new fields, provided start-up grants and other support for scientific endeavors, supported scientific societies, and developed a body of high-quality, peer-reviewed literature that represents the current standard for communication of scientific results. Publishers also have served as a repository of content that they are making available to the public, often in cost-effective ways. As library budgets become progressively more restricted, maintaining content and access through publishers may well become invaluable.

Interestingly, as open-access journals have become available, a transition period has started that may prove even more expensive to universities, in particular, than the current publication model. It is likely to be some time before open-access journals replace subscription-based journals entirely (possibly never); and during the transition period when libraries and universities may need to pay both for subscriptions and author fees, expenses may rise substantially.

The ideal solution to the current publishing problem is not clear. However, it is clear that the entire scientific community needs to work closely with commercial and nonprofit publishers, libraries, and open-access advocates to develop a paradigm that will permit communication and dissemination of peer-reviewed scientific information in a manner that is cost-effective and sustainable for readers, authors, and distributors of scientific content. As physicians in general and otolaryngologists specifically, it is important for us to be aware of these issues, and to become involved in defining the publication process for the 21st century.

Additional information on this subject can be found in an article by Lila Guterman called "The Promise and Peril of 'Open Access'" in the January 30, 2004, issue of The Chronicle of Higher Education.

ROBERT T. SATALOFF, MD, DMA

Editor-in-Chief

EAR, NOSE & THROAT JOURNAL