Professor Ian Diamond
Chair, RCUK Executive Group
Research Councils UK Secretariat
Polaris House , North Star Ave
Swindon SN2 1ET
Date: 22 August
Dear Professor Diamond,
are responding to the public letter, addressed to yourself, by Sally
(Executive Director of ALPSP,
the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers),
concerning the RCUK's
proposed research self-archiving
says that the RCUK policy would have 'disastrous consequences' for
yet all objective evidence is precisely contrary to this dire
the point-by-point rebuttal attached (below) to this letter, we
on the basis of the actual data and a careful logical analysis. Here is
argues that a policy of mandated self-archiving of research articles in
when combined with the ready retrievability of those articles through
engines (such as Google Scholar)
and interoperability (facilitated by standards such as OAI-PMH),
"will accelerate the move to a disastrous scenario".
The disastrous scenario predicted by ALPSP is that an RCUK mandate would cause libraries to cancel subscriptions, which would in turn lead to the financial failure of scholarly journals, and so to the collapse of the quality control and peer review process that publishers manage.
Not only are these claims unsubstantiated, but all the evidence to date shows the reverse to be true: not only do journals thrive and co-exist alongside author self-archiving, but they can actually benefit from it -- both in terms of more citations and more subscriptions.
there is a logical contradiction in the position adopted by ALPSP. On the one hand, ALPSP maintains that
learned societies must be allowed to operate in a free market ("each
publisher must have the right to establish the best way of expanding
its journal content that is compatible with continuing viability"). Yet
the other hand, ALPSP is in effect asking RCUK to protect learned
from the consequences of a free market -- specifically the right of
have funded and produced research to make their product readily
uptake by its intended users.
no one denies is that today many researchers are unable to access all
research they need to do their work. As ALPSP itself acknowledges,
already have to make use of author self-archived articles in order to
access to "otherwise inaccessible published articles," since no research institution can
to subscribe to all the journals its researchers need.
short, due to the current constraints on the accessibility of research
the potential of British scholarship is not being maximised currently.
constraints on accessibility can now, in the digital age, be eliminated
completely, to the benefit of the UK economy and society, exactly in
RCUK has proposed.
this reason, we believe that RCUK should go ahead and implement its
immediate-self-archiving mandate, without further delay. That done,
meet with ALPSP and other interested parties to discuss and plan how
Institutional Repositories can collaborate with journals and their
in sharing the newfound benefits of maximising UK research access and
(A point-by-point rebuttal is attached below. A longer analysis, signed also by some non-UK supporters, is at http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/alpsp.doc )
Professor Tim Berners-Lee (University of Southampton)
Professor Dave De Roure (University of Southampton)
Professor Stevan Harnad (University of Southampton)
Professor Nigel Shadbolt (University of Southampton)
Professor Derek Law (University of Strathclyde)
Dr. Peter Murray-Rust (University of Cambridge)
Professor Charles Oppenheim (Loughborough University)
Professor Yorick Wilks (University of Sheffield)
This hypothesis has already been tested and the actual evidence affords not the slightest hint of any 'move to a disastrous scenario.' Self-archiving is most advanced in physics, hence that is the strongest test of where it is moving: Since 1991, hundreds of thousands of articles have been made freely accessible and readily retrievable by physicists using the open archive called arXiv; those articles have been extensively accessed, retrieved, used and cited by other researchers exactly as their authors intended. Yet when asked, both of the large physics learned societies (the Institute of Physics Publishing in the UK and the American Physical Society) responded very explicitly that they cannot identify any loss of subscriptions to their journals as a result of this critical mass of self-archived and readily retrievable physics articles1.
Librarians will increasingly find that 'good enough' versions of a
significant proportion of articles in journals are
freely available; in a situation where they lack the funds to purchase
content their users want, it is inconceivable that they would not seek
money by cancelling subscriptions to those journals. As a result, those
journals will die.
neither research topics nor research journals have national boundaries.
RCUK-funded researchers publish articles in thousands of journals, and
articles represent the output of only a small fraction of the world's
population. It is therefore extremely unlikely that a 'significant
of the articles in any particular journal will become freely available
consequence of the RCUK policy.
Second, as we know, some physics journals already do contain a 'significant proportion' of articles that have been self-archived in the physics repository, arXiv -- yet librarians have not cancelled subscriptions: the journals continue to survive and thrive.
consequences of the destruction of
journals' viability are very serious. Not only will it become
support the whole process of quality control, including (but not
peer review, but in addition, the research community will lose all the
value and prestige which is added, for both author and reader, through
inclusion in a highly rated journal with a clearly understood audience
authors and readers value the rich online functionality added by
they will still wish to have access to the journal, either through
subscriptions or through their libraries. This is obviously the case
physics journals. Publishers who add significant value create a product
users and their institutions will pay for.
Researchers who cannot access the journal version, however -- because their institutions 'lack the funds to purchase all the content their users want' -- should not be denied access to the basic research results, which have always been given away for free by their authors (to their publishers, as well as to all requesters of reprints). Nor should those authors be denied the usage and impact of those users. Such limitations on access have always hampered the impact and progress of British scholarship.
ALPSP: We absolutely reject unsupported assertions that self-archiving in publicly accessible repositories does not and will not damage journals. Indeed, we are accumulating a growing body of evidence that the opposite is the case, even at this early stage. For example:
Increasingly, librarians are making use of
COUNTER-compliant (and therefore comparable) usage statistics to guide
decisions to renew or cancel journals. The Institute of Physics
therefore concerned to see that article downloads from its site are
significantly lower for those journals whose content is substantially
replicated in the ArXiV repository than for those which are not.
And what is the evidence supporting the assertion that 'the opposite is the case' and journals are damaged? None. As we know, the Institute of Physics Publishing (like the American Physical Society) has already stated publicly that it cannot identify any loss of subscriptions as a result of 14 years of self-archiving by physicists1. Moreover, institutional repository software developers are now working with publishers on ways to ensure that the usage of articles in repositories is credited to the publisher.
Citation statistics and the resultant impact
factors are of enormous importance to authors and their institutions;
influence librarians' renewal/cancellation decisions. Both the
Physics and the London Mathematical Society are therefore troubled to
increasing tendency for authors to cite only the repository version of
article, without mentioning the journal in which it was later
decisions to cancel or subscribe to journals are made on the basis of a
of measures, citation statistics being just one of them2.
so journals carrying
self-archived articles will perform better
under this measure.
Citing the canonical version of an article wherever possible is a matter of author best-practice; it is misleading to cite momentary lags in scholarliness as if they were an argument against self-archiving. All of this can and will be quite easily and naturally adjusted, partly through updated scholarly practice and partly through institutional and publisher repositories collaborating in a system of pooled and shared citation statistics -- all credited to the official published version, as proper scholarliness dictates. These are all just natural adaptations to the new medium.
ALPSP:  Evidence is also growing that free availability of content has a very rapid negative effect on subscriptions. Oxford University Press made the contents of Nucleic Acids Research freely available online six months after publication; subscription loss was much greater than in related journals where the content was free after a year...
 The BMJ Publishing Group has noted a similar effect...
the USA, the Institute for Operations
Research and the Management Sciences ... made freely available on the
a subscriptions decline
all three examples whole journals
were made freely available, in their entirety, with all the added value
rich online functionality that a journal provides. This is not at all
as the self-archiving of authors' drafts, which are simply the basic
results, provided by the author on a single-article basis. The latter,
former, is the target of the proposed RCUK policy. It is hence highly
misleading to cite the effects of the former as evidence of negative
(And although the RCUK is not proposing to mandate whole-journal open access, it is worth noting that there is also plenty of evidence that journals have benefited from being made freely available: Molecular Biology of the Cell's (MBC's) subscriptions have grown steadily after free access was provided by its publisher, The American Society for Cell Biology3. MBC also enjoys a high impact factor and healthy submissions by authors encouraged by the increased exposure their articles receive. The same has happened for journals published by other societies4.)
addition, it is increasingly clear
that this is exactly how researchers are already using search engines
Scirus and Google Scholar... 'At this point, my main use of both
Google Scholar] is for finding free Web versions of otherwise
published articles... Both Scirus and Scholar were also useful for
author-hosted article copies, preprints, e-prints, and other
the same article.'
Scirus, Google Scholar and the other search engines that retrieve open access articles serve the research community by enabling researchers to find and access articles they would otherwise be unable to read because they are hidden behind subscription barriers. These services help to maximise research access, usage and impact, all to the benefit of British science and scholarship, exactly as their authors and their institutions and funders wish them to do.
the light of this growing evidence of
serious and irreversible damage, each publisher must have the right to
establish the best way of expanding access to its journal content that
compatible with continuing viability.
So far no evidence of serious and irreversible damage inflicted by self-archiving has been presented by ALPSP. This is unsurprising, because none exists. Publishers should do what they can to expand access and remain viable. But they certainly have no right to prevent researchers, their institutions and their funders from expanding access to their research findings either -- nor to expect them to wait and see whether their publishers will one day maximise access for them.
is not best achieved by mandating
the earliest possible self-archiving, and thus forcing the adoption of
and uncosted publishing practices.
Self-archiving -- and what the RCUK is mandating -- is not a publishing practice at all: it is an author practice. And it has been tried and tested -- with great success -- for over 15 years without 'forcing the adoption' of any 'untried and uncosted publishing practices.' What UK research needs now is more self-archiving, not more delay and counterfactual projections.
in turn will deprive learned
societies of an important income stream, without which many will be
support their other activities -- such as meetings, bursaries, research
public education and patient information -- which are of huge benefit
their research communities and to the general public.
Please contrast this
double-doomsday scenario ('self-archiving will not only destroy
all the other good works of learned societies') with the following
Dr Elizabeth Marincola, Executive Director of the American Society for
Biology, a sizeable but not huge society (10,000 members; many US
and medical societies have over 100,000):
"I think the more dependent societies are on their publications, the farther away they are from the real needs of their members. If they were really doing good work and their members were aware of this, then they wouldn't be so fearful...... When my colleagues come to me and say they couldn't possibly think of putting their publishing revenues at risk, I think 'why haven't you been diversifying your revenue sources all along and why haven't you been diversifying your products all along?' The ASCB offers a diverse range of products so that if publications were at risk financially, we wouldn't lose our membership base because there are lots of other reasons why people are members."3
perfectly encapsulates why we should not be taking too seriously the
warnings from those learned societies who warn that self-archiving will
research and its dissemination. The dissemination of research findings
be a high-priority service for learned societies, but not a commercial
end-in-itself that generates profit to subsidise other activities, at
of British research itself.
RCUK should go ahead and implement its immediate-self-archiving mandate, without any further delay, and then meet with ALPSP and other interested parties to discuss and plan how the UK Institutional Repositories can collaborate with journals and their publishers in pooling download and citation statistics, and in other other ways of sharing the benefits of maximising UK research access and impact.
1. Swan, A (2004). American Scientist Open Access Forum 3 February, 2005
communication from a UK University Library
Director: 'I know of no HE library where librarians make cancellation
subscription decisions. Typically they say to the department/faculty
to save £X,000" from your share of the serials budget, what do you want to cut?'. These are seen as
-- not metrics-driven --
judgements, and no librarian
those academic judgements, as they are indefensible in Senate... [S]uch
are almost always wholly subjective, not objective, and have nothing to
the existence or otherwise of repositories.'
society lady: an interview with Elizabeth
Marincola (2003) Open Access Now, October
4. Walker, T (2002) Two societies show how to profit by providing free access. Learned Publishing 15, 279-284.
Copies also sent to:
The Lord Sainsbury of Turville Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Science and Innovation Department of Trade and Industry
Professor Sir Keith O'Nions Director General of Research Councils, Office of Science and Technology
Drs. Astrid Wissenburg, RCUK Secretariat
Professor Colin Blakemore, Medical Research Council
Frances Marsden, Arts and Humanities Research Council
Professor Julia Goodfellow, Biotechnology and Biological Research Council
Professor Richard Wade, Particle Physics & Astronomy Research Council
Professor Alan Thorpe, Natural Environment Research Council
Professor John O'Reilly, Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council
Professor John Wood, Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils
Andrea Powell, Chair of ALPSP Council (Director of Publishing, CAB International)