Comments on: Framing the Open Access Debate

By: Information as Property « The Scholarly Kitchen

Information as Property « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 10:52:43 +0000

[...] Information, however, has properties that make it sufficiently different from physical objects to question whether the property model is a good metaphor for information. Unlike natural resources, information is non-depletable. Overuse of information does not lead to its scarcity, nor does it attenuate its value; in fact, it does just the opposite. Secondly, it is non-rival, meaning that my reading an article does not deprive you of reading the same article. Lastly, it is difficult to exclude individuals from gaining access to information. Information, especially in its digital form, is porous and moves very easily between people. This is why I find the Open Access metaphor so problematic. [...]

By: Dan Lee

Dan Lee — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 19:59:27 +0000

This is indeed a policy issue. And as such, it is indeed subtle and rooted in core values. But having raised that point, let’s tease out some of the subtlety.

Not all society publishers are alike. But for those who use their publishing surpluses to fund grants and other activities related to their core purpose and whose core subscription base is university libraries the question remains: is this the most efficient or effective way to fund these activities? It might be better to let universities keep more of their money and fund these activities directly.

It’s an old argument and may apply to few societies.

By: Heather Goodell

Heather Goodell — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 17:19:55 +0000

Like many other scientific societies who have signed on to the DC Principles, any profits we make from publishing go to fund our mission. The American Heart Association is the largest source of funding for heart-related research in the United States after the National Institutes of Health.

See the American Heart Association Research Program at:
http://americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=138

By: Martin Frank

Martin Frank — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:36:00 +0000

Phil,
As one of the Society publishers that puts money into nurturing the next generation of scientists, thank you for your comments. Also, as the coordinator of the DC Principles Coalition, we have tried not to use the term “open access” in our messaging. We use “free access,” free access based on terms set by the society publisher based on its existing business and publishing models. In so doing, when we give free access, it is indeed a gift to the community, whether given immediately or after 12 months.

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 18:59:14 +0000

David,
You are absolutely right that there are exceptions to the hard society/commercial dichotomy that I’m creating. We may even have the same chemical society in mind…

To argue from exceptions, however, is to confuse the debate. The vast majority of scientific societies provide exceptional value per subscription dollar based on many different metrics (articles, pages, downloads), and use their profits for activities that are consistent with their broader mission in science and society.

This is different than rewarding shareholders for their investments.

By: David Flaxbart

David Flaxbart — Tue, 03 Mar 2009 17:00:07 +0000

I admire Phil Davis’ work and appreciate this thoughtful contribution.

However I want to comment on the final point about non-profit societies. If the OA crowd is guilty of caricaturing publishers as greedy and manipulative, they are occasionally also guilty of assuming that all “scholarly society” publishers are knights in shining armor. This isn’t the case.

The largest of them have inverted (some might say perverted) the model by becoming major quasi-commercial publishers that happen to have memberships attached — ie, the tail has been wagging the dog for years. The fig leaf of non-profit status allows these publishers to command a self-serving moral high ground and pretend they are on the side of science and the public, when in fact it’s all about the money.

Sure, the money supports the “society”, but it also supports 7-figure executive salaries and lavish headquarters and bullying lobbying arms that seek to reframe the OA debate and paint OA as a form of dangerous neo-socialism that will destroy the fabric of science, and similar nonsense. And the society costume helps to give these arguments more credence with policymakers than any commercial firm could get.

They frequently act in ways that are diametrically opposed to the wishes of their own rank and file members, although here again the power of framing helps them convince members, editors and authors that Daddy knows best and is acting in the best interest of scientists. Who are these members, whose knowledge of publishing economics is sketchy at best, to disagree with their own society’s leadership?

I will avoid naming names here because it should be obvious who I’m talking about. Certainly not all non-profits fall into this category; hopefully most don’t. But the few that do are giving the rest a bad name.

It’s too simplistic to divide the publishing world into artificial and largely meaningless “for-profit” and “non-profit” buckets. These are tax-status terms and have little to do with mission, size, philosophy, or business models. There are good and bad among both types.