Industry report
Research is ‘poorly communicated, and in the control of private corporations’ Jon Tennant, founder of the Open Science MOOC and a researcher at IGDORE
What do you see as the biggest challenges in scholarly publishing today? We are still not using web-based technologies to do what we could be doing. The web was created for the instantaneous sharing of scholarly research, and it’s basically the only thing that we haven’t achieved since its development. The power of the web has infiltrated every aspect of our lives, yet scholarly research – that could have profound impacts – often remains hidden behind paywalls, poorly communicated, and in the control of private corporations. Technological innovation tends to
meet resistance, especially with a very entrenched and powerful status quo, and that’s what we have in scholarly publishing. It’s led to a system of cultural inertia, where everyone is locked into a system of fear of innovation, because the traditional way of doing things is basically still forced down our throats and seems to be the only way of doing things. It makes innovating beyond that extremely risky for individuals. We haven’t had any coordinated or systematic strategic innovation across research domains, libraries and policy makers: we’re kept in a perpetual state of risk. Those who want to innovate are chased out of the system, and those who stay in the system are those who conform. Everyone is still playing the ‘publish or
perish’ game, because they are under the illusion everyone else is playing that game.
How can researchers overcome this challenge? There’s a lot of reasons to be encouraged that things are changing for the better. Both from a grass-roots, bottom-up approach, and from a top-down political direction. Someone else realised recently that as risk was the big thing constraining innovation, the only way to overcome that was through creating a system of
collective action that remains risk-free to those who sign up. With the Free Our Knowledge boycott
you can sign the boycott against the commercialisation of the publishing industry, but your name won’t be made public until a specific threshold of signatories from your own community have also signed. Plan-S policy proposals from a consortium of 13 national funders in the EU, backed by the European Commission, will hopefully stimulate some further activity. It was one of the first times that a policy at this level had actually made direct challenges to the publishing models of traditional publishing houses, and that made it very powerful.
How can publishers help overcome the challenges? Publishers did a very good job of transitioning all of their journals and content to online, but they essentially transferred the legacy print-based world of doing things. They didn’t address the way the journal-based metrics system prioritises the venue of publication over the intrinsic quality of research, or how copyright is misused by publishers to essentially steal content from authors, to maintain full rights. The system was able to shift to a digital world, maintain its current consolidated and powerful control over the way things were conducted, and also continue to make enormous sums of money and huge profits. Plan-S is a good step to breaking the system down and returning science to being a societal or public good, but it’s not ambitious enough. No one wants to put publishers out of business, but something where they are not making outrageous profits based on business practices that are essentially racketeering, and preventing access to knowledge. I would ask them to make all of their content available, then build services on top of it – which they can use to provide
Download the report here:
www.researchinformation.info/scholarly-publishing-research-cycle-2018
www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo
additional value after the research has all been communicated and reviewed. There are many services that can be built on top of the published record, and organisations like Elsevier and Springer Nature are now moving into data and analytics – but they’re still maintaining ownership over the published record, instead of freeing it up and allowing others to build on it too.
What can libraries do to help overcome the challenges? Librarians are getting more confident and more vocal. We have library consortia coming together to negotiate stronger collective bargaining positions against large scholarly publishers, and they’re getting more confident because they’re seeing success. In places like Germany and Sweden, these consortia have successfully said: ‘No, enough is enough.
“Everyone is locked into a system of fear of innovation, as the traditional way of doing things is still forced down our throats”
We’re going to stop paying you and reinvest in a system in which researchers can be more efficient and improve the way research is done and communicated.’ There was a really great idea by a
librarian last year called the 2.5 per cent Commitment. If libraries all collectively decided that they were going to save 2.5 per cent of their annual budget each year, and invest it into a common scholarly infrastructure it would almost fix the entire system overnight. I’m quite excited to see the librarians
take up arms against the publishers, and become more confident in negotiations, become more powerful, become more of a community that binds together to support a global scholarly infrastructure that’s in the best interests of the research community and the wider public.
February/March 2019 Research Information 21
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36
