SPEAKING
FREELY Revolution in democratizing
research By Muralidhar S
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times
Online feature that allows guest writers to have
their say. Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing.
While a democratic
wave was sweeping the Arab world, a similar wave
was silently sweeping the cerebral world of
academic research. Interestingly, the demands in
both cases weren't very different. Dr. Tim Gowers,
a respected mathematician, did the academic
equivalent of what Mohamed Bouazizi did in
Tunisia. Dr. Gowers accused "for- profit" STM
(Science, Technology and Medicine) publishers of
profiting by restricting access to scientific
research. He pressed for democratizing the process
of disseminating scientific research. In addition,
he announced his
decision to boycott a
leading "for-profit" publisher and exhorted his
colleagues to follow suit. More than 12000
researchers heeded his call setting off alarm
bells in the boardrooms of "for-profit"
publishers. Later, when Harvard University,
arguably the richest and the most endowed
university in the world, claimed it can no longer
afford the steep journal prices, the bells started
tonging louder.
At stake is tens of
billions of dollars and invaluable scientific
literature that can impact the word we live in. We
are talking about research of the highest quality
- research that cures diseases, magnifies
computing capabilities, powers greener vehicles
and promotes sustainability. The publishers resent
being portrayed as greedy gatekeepers who exploit
the work of the researchers to fill their own deep
pockets. They claim to manage a complex peer
review process, the time tested process in which
an article is vetted and validated by experts in
the field, and invest in technology and resources
required to make a research finding a permanent
record of science. They also point to an array of
open access journals, where the author - not the
reader- pays for an article, in their stable that
are free of the restrictions that bothered Dr.
Gowers and his ilk.
The issue is far more
complex than what either side projects it to be.
Though the issue is global in nature, Asia must
watch the developments very closely. Emerging
nations in Asia are rapidly growing their research
activity. Consequently, demand for high quality
research information will continue to increase at
a rapid clip. While China recorded a CAGR of 20%
in the number of articles published in the first
decade of the millennium, India and South Korea
were neck and neck at 11% and 12 % respectively.
The corresponding figure for much of the western
world was 3-4%. Asian nations are not only
conducting more research than ever before, but are
also consuming more research information than ever
before. A look at the real time demand for
research articles will shine a spotlight on Asia's
appetite for high quality research findings. In
these emerging economies, the share of R&D
spending as a%age of GDP has doubled from 1% in
2000 to 2% in 2010. With impressive overall
underlying GDP growth, the increase in R&D
spending is significant in absolute terms. It is
important for the Asian policy makers to ensure
that the escalating tensions don't derail the
progress made. For this, the policy makers must
understand the genesis of the problem.
The
current trouble is primarily due to a battle being
waged by the stakeholders in the research
ecosystem. It is a classic battle for power with
heavy political, commercial and moral
undercurrents. The academicians and the publishers
have long had a symbiotic relationship. The
former's career progression and the coveted tenure
positions largely depended on publishing research
findings in influential journals, most of which
were controlled by the latter. Driven by the
desire to march ahead, the researchers submitted a
steady stream of research work much to the delight
of the publisher. The publisher dipped into the
resources of the research community to have the
incoming articles peer reviewed. The researcher
merrily obliged because being invited to review an
article by a reputed journal implied a certain
level of authority in the field. After peer
review, the publisher neatly packaged the work
into a digital or a print output and sold it back
to the academic community via the institution
libraries. Like the cable companies, the
publishers bundled popular journals with less
popular ones and sold them as a package to the
libraries. What seemed like a happy marriage
started hitting the rocks when the subscription
bills kept increasing while the library budgets
kept decreasing. When this scenario affected the
research community's access to high quality
scientific work, some researchers paused and
thought "The funding bodies/the governments
provide the money, we carry out the research, we
author the articles, we review them and we
eventually consume and improve them. Why are we
then paying millions to the publisher and allowing
them to be gatekeepers?" With the advent of
internet, the researchers started seeing the
publishers as a disposable part of the value
chain. Like the rulers facing the wrath in the
Arab spring, the publishers have long been used to
the cocooned comforts of the status quo and didn't
want that disturbed. After all they flourished in
an enviable environment - a market that is
relatively price inelastic, a business that is
relatively recession proof, an industry that is at
best an oligopoly and a gross margin that is 1.5x
Apple Inc's. A key stakeholder in the entire
process - the funding bodies that pump millions of
research dollars jumped into the fray and threw
their weight behind the revolting researchers. To
compound the problems for the Publishers, the
government funds a third of all the research and
is menacingly moving to slowly but surely change
the status quo. The governments are making a
morally powerful argument that publically funded
research must be publically available and not stay
behind pay walls.
There are no clear
heroes or villains in this battle. Each
stakeholder has contributed significantly to the
advancement of science. But in today's world where
barriers to communication and information exchange
are being shattered, a business model that relies
heavily on controlling access is unlikely to be
popular in the long run. The publishers are adding
tremendous value to the research process by
transforming a raw manuscript into a neatly
formatted and peer reviewed article that can be
searched and cited, thereby making the work a
permanent record of science. The work involves
complex and time consuming coordination with
scholars and editorial staff and it sometimes can
take years for a research work to be published. In
the current model, the publishers retain total
control over a manuscript they process. They put
97% of their peer reviewed work behind a pay wall.
Asian policy makers must determine whether
the cost and ease of access are impacting research
progress. Given the emerging nature of most Asian
economies, scholars and institutions may not be
able to afford the steepening subscription prices.
At the same time, the process of guaranteeing
quality must be economically viable for the
publishers. A solution is difficult without
regional coordination. In the past, the publishers
have accepted the economic realities prevailing in
Asia and have introduced low priced editions that
retail at significantly reduced prices than they
do in the west. Taking a cue from here, the Asian
nations, as a block, could consider pushing for a
similar treatment when it comes to accessing
research articles via institution and public
libraries. Two-thirds of all the research is
funded by and carried out on behalf of corporates.
The proposed collective bargaining could exclude
this segment so as to impact only a third of the
publisher's pie. The effort could well turn out to
be a win-win situation with the Asian block of
nations guaranteeing volumes in return for
controlling access costs.
Another option
is for the Asian block to lead a global effort to
float a multilateral organization that will
promote scientific research, collaboration and
dissemination of research outcomes free of the
barriers currently being opposed. Such a body will
essentially provide the same services that a
for-profit publisher would, but would not be
profit driven. This is a more challenging option
given the effort required to establish a high
impact journal. However, a publisher aligned with
the goals of the research community and the
funding body is bound to be popular in the long
run. Also, such a multi-lateral body has the best
chance to successfully take on the formidable
"for-profit" publishers.
The sector is
certainly moving towards an open access model
where the author pays the publisher to cover the
APC (Article Publishing Charge - the cost of peer
review and publishing). Governments and funding
bodies are likely mandate that research funded by
them be freely available to anyone interested in
accessing it. It is important to note that 'free
availability' does not mean being available free
of cost. The funding bodies could set aside a
portion of their funding to finance the APC the
authors must pay.
For any solution to have
the desired effect, the publishers must realize
the changing dynamics of the industry and adapt
accordingly. They are right in expecting to be
compensated for their services, but piggy backing
on a predominantly bundling based subscription
model is simply unsustainable. Free market
economics will ensure equilibrium with corporate
customers. Publishers could meet their
non-corporate customers (mostly universities) half
way down the bridge by making a la carte
subscriptions attractive. They could innovate with
their pricing model by topping up the APC with a
recurring fee for archiving and maintaining the
research work. After all, any published work is
archived in perpetuity.
During a shakeup,
it is common for the most powerful stakeholder to
get impacted the most. So far, the publishers have
wielded enormous clout in the eco system. The
changes sweeping the industry are threating their
grip. The publishers have weathered storms in the
past - they were remarkably nimble in embracing
the digital transformation. This is an opportunity
for them to demonstrate their dexterity yet again.
This is also an opportunity for Asia to set
another global precedent in tackling a tricky
issue. Let's hope all the stakeholders join hands
to amicably advance Science and Technology for the
benefit of mankind.
Muralidhar S
is an India based analyst for media and publishing
companies. He specializes in policy analysis and
has written extensively on political and media
affairs. He can be contacted via email:
varshneyaa@gmail.com
(Copyright 2012
Muralidhar S)
Speaking Freely is an
Asia Times Online feature that allows guest
writers to have their say.Please
click hereif you are interested in
contributing. Articles submitted for this section
allow our readers to express their opinions and do
not necessarily meet the same editorial standards
of Asia Times Online's regular
contributors.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
