Three basic types of journals

1
Three basic types of journals

• Selective-commercial (Cell, Nature)
• Selective-not for profit (JCB, Science, Genes
  Development, AJP, PLoS)
• Non-selective, archival (commercial, BioMed
  Central)

2
Importance of selective, non-profit journals

• Account for only 5 of all scientific journals
• Yet, they comprise 44 of the top 100 most highly
  cited biomedical journals (ISI, 2003)
• Nearly half of all citations

3
Importance of selective, non-profit journals

• A disproportionately important forum for
  scientific communication
• So, it is essential to the scientific community
  that the viability of this forum not be risked
• Not part of the problem, but rather, essential to
  the solution

4
Importance of selective, non-profit journals

• Run by and for the scientific community, not for
  corporate masters
• Provide an essential post-laboratory quality
  control
• Absence of profit motive and dedication to the
  community has fostered innovation

5
Innovations promoted by non-profits

• On-line publication HighWire Press at Stanford
• Self-funding archiving projects, fellowships,
  outreach
• Standards for digital data integrity (JCB/NIH)
• Free sharing/distribution of reagents
• via National Academy
• Addgene, Inc. initiative

6
The JCB and access

• Founding and leading journal in the field
• Low subscription rates (1500 site license fee,
  1/year/scientist at Yale)
• Reasonable page charges
• First to release content after 6 months (in
  response to the original PLoS boycott)
• Content released free to 142 developing nations
  from moment of publication

7
The JCB and service

• First to provide free on line access to
  historical archive (from 1954, vol 1, issue 1)
• All review and editing by colleagues, not
  professionals
• Rapid turnaround (3-4 wks) and publication
• Well received news and analysis features

8
The JCB and access

• We support all experiments with new models of
  access, and will embrace anything that can be
  shown to work without risking a forum on which
  the scientific community depends.
• We are in business to promote scientific
  communication, not profits
• So, why not simply go open access?

9
Costs of publication

• Despite modest operation, costs approach
  8000/article (even online only)
• Only 15 submitted papers accepted
• Two full time editors
• Staff for review, on line publishing, archiving
• About average for all journals (some more, some
  less)
• Author pays model unacceptable only wealthy
  labs could afford publication

10
The track record thus far

• Only 54 of PNAS authors would be willing to pay
  a surcharge for open access, and 84 of those are
  only willing to pay 500.
• Mixed models have led to 10 participation.
• J Clin Invest charges 2,700/article for open
  access, but relies on subscriptions for 50 of
  its revenue (and has society backing)
• Br Med J has abandoned free access after
  subscriptions fell

11
The PLoS model?

• A highly selective non-profit
• 1,500 per paper (author pays)
• Financial details never revealed
• Reliance on major philanthropy (9MM grant)

12
Unfortunately, the execution of PLoS has caused
some problems

• Philanthropic support is practical for only a
  select few.
• It is dangerous not to reveal true costs when
  making policy mandated underfunding

13
Unfortunately, the execution of PLoS has caused
counterproductive problems

• Reliance on legislative and public relations
  solutions invites further intrusion of national
  politics into science.
• Ignores and threatens the survival of other
  non-profits, the natural and proven supporters of
  scientific communication and service to the
  community

14
Making the transition open access

• Realistic access (6 month release, low cost) as
  a good current compromise
• Focus of current NIH guidelines
• Vast majority of scientists have immediate access
  due to site licenses
• General public has reasonable access
• Alternative pathways to more complete access can
  be safely explored
• Market, not ideology, should determine success

15
Making the transition open access

• PLoS should work together and co-exist with the
  non-profit sector to further speed innovation
• PLoS should not seek to impose an unproven model
  too much at risk for too little gain
• Selective commercial journals exist because they
  provide a desireable forum, and should be allowed
  to compete but persuaded to provide realistic
  access

16
Making the transition open access

• Majority of current library cost reflects
  non-selective, commercial journals
• Non-profits can compete here by providing low
  cost, open access archives as attractive
  alternatives to libraries and scientists
• High paper throughput, low review/editing costs
  favorable to author pays model
• Cytopedia a reviewed open access repository

17
Quo vadis?

• Government/funding agency subsidies?
• Increase institutional site license fees in
  exchange for free access to papers from that
  institution?
• Evolutionary improvments have been dramatic why
  not just continue?