UK Plans To Make All Government-Funded Research Free To The Public Immediately Upon Publication

from the groundbreaking dept

We've discussed the fight in the US over open access to government-funded research in the past. Currently, the NIH requires any NIH-funded paper to be publicly & freely available one-year after it's been published. That gives journals one-year of exclusivity to profit off of the work before it's more widely available. There have been some efforts to block government agencies from requiring such open access, as well as proposals to expand it to other agencies beyond the NIH. We also recently wrote about a proposal in New York to do something similar, but with six-month of exclusivity, rather than a year.

Of course, some people take offense to any such exclusivity, seeing as we're still talking about taxpayer-funded research. Over in the UK, it appears that they're going to go completely in favor of open access, with a plan requiring immediate free access to any taxpayer-funded research. That's big news. Under the scheme, research papers that describe work paid for by the British taxpayer will be free online for universities, companies and individuals to use for any purpose, wherever they are in the world. The plan will be rolled out over the next two years, but by 2014, it sounds like all such research in the UK will be widely available for free.

Unfortunately, not all of the details sounds as good. The proposal tries to make the journals okay with this by forcing researchers to pay an "article processing charge" for each paper they publish, and it sounds like some of those funds go back to the publishers. But, of course, that's putting more of the cost on the universities that fund the research, and there's reasonable fear that this will lead those universities to ration out how many publications are "allowed." Many open access advocates preferred a different plan, that still involved academics doing deals with journals, but which also allowed them to publish the works online. The publishers, of course, weren't happy with that plan.

More open access is definitely a good thing, but I worry about any sort of plan that involves an explicit attempt to prop up a legacy industry that doesn't want to adapt. That seems very likely to create economic waste and to be abused at the cost of the public.

Filed Under: government research, nih, open access, uk

NY Considering Bill To Require Open Access To State Funded Research

from the six-months dept

We've talked about the various debates concerning open access to federally funded research, and while there are still debates going on about bills in one direction or the other at the federal level, it looks like some politicians in NY State want to take matters into their own hands.

Earlier this year, a bill was introduced in the NY State Senate to establish open access to publicly funded research:

Each year, New York State agencies distribute tens of millions of dollars in direct and underwritten funding to original research projects. Much of the time, these papers receive publication to peer-reviewed journals, However, while the internet has expanded the breadth of free information that is available to the general public, many peer reviewed journals maintain prohibitive cost barriers which block widespread public access.

New York State proudly supports its dedicated funding to research which helps create scientific, environmental, and cultural breakthroughs; however it is unacceptable that that the taxpayers who provide the money for this research should encounter any barrier in accessing it.

This bill will provide a window for 6 months of exclusive protection to the research, at which point it is only just that the general public be free to share in the information generated from the research. Passing this law will give New York the honor of being the first state in the country to require public access to research generated from taxpayer dollars.

I have no idea if this bill has any legs, but it's good to see such efforts being made.

Filed Under: new york, open access, research

The Warehousing And Delivery Of Digital Goods? Nearly Free, Pretty Easy, Mostly Trivial

from the relax,-be-happy dept

One of the most important moments in the rise of a radical idea is when the fightback begins, because it signals an acceptance by the establishment that the challenger is a real threat. That moment has certainly arrived for open access, most obviously through moves like the Research Works Act, which would have cut off open access to research funded by the US government. That attack soon stalled, but the sniping at open access and its underlying model of free distribution has continued.

Here, for example, is an interesting post by Kent Anderson, who is CEO/Publisher of the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery, with the title "Not Free, Not Easy, Not Trivial -- The Warehousing and Delivery of Digital Goods." The starting point is as follows:

There is a persistent conceit stemming from the IT arrogance we continue to see around us, but it's one that most IT professionals are finding real problems with -- the notion that storing and distributing digital goods is a trivial, simple matter, adds nothing to their cost, and can be effectively done by amateurs.

As a result, he thinks, there is "a consistent theme among dew-eyed idealists about publishing -- that digital goods are infinitely reproducible at no marginal cost, and therefore can be priced at the rock-bottom price of 'free'."

Well, they're certainly "infinitely reproducible", but nobody seriously claims that can be done at zero marginal cost. It is, however, extremely small. Indeed, in another post, Anderson himself provides a rough estimate for one part of the cost -- the online delivery of a 1Mbyte file: $0.001. It's true that delivering millions of copies would represent a more significant sum, but that ignores things like BitTorrent, which effectively shares the cost of distributing digital goods among many downloaders. Using such P2P delivery systems, the cost to the publisher really is vanishingly small.

But Anderson thinks there are other issues:

Even beyond just their power requirements, digital goods have particular traits that make them difficult to store effectively, challenging to distribute well, and much more effective when handled by paid professionals.

Why might that be?

First, digital goods are not intangible. They occupy physical space, be that on a hard drive, on flash memory, or during transmission. A full Kindle weighs an attogram more when fully loaded with digital goods, and there are hundreds of thousands of Kindles in the field.

According to the source referenced, "the difference between an empty e-reader and a full one is just one attogram" -- a million-trillionth of a gram. Even with "hundreds of thousands of Kindles in the field," that extra fraction of a gram spread around the world is hardly going to be a major problem. But leaving aside the issue of weight, it's certainly true that this data takes up space on storage media:

The proliferation of digital goods -- photos, music, Web pages, blog posts, social media shares, tweets, ratings, movies and videos, and so much more -- puts incredible and growing pressure on metadata management techniques and layers. This means building more and larger warehouses, which adds to both ongoing costs for current users and migration costs as older warehouses are outstripped by new demands. Megabytes become gigabytes become terrabytes become zettabytes and beyond. Where will they all fit?

One answer is "in your pocket:" according to Amazon, a 1 terabyte portable hard disc currently costs around $100. Yes, a zettabyte might be a little more pricey, but judging by this recent large-scale, real-life project, we're still in the sub-petabyte era, so storing all this data isn't really going to require a warehouse -- a few rack systems should suffice.

But independently of where you are going to put it, another question is: Where is all that important metadata going to come from? As Anderson rightly says:

Creating, updating, and tracking the metadata is a chore for owners of digital goods. Poor metadata -- like a photo name off your digital camera of DX0023 -- can make the photo hard to find or use. Better metadata -- usually applied by humans, like "Rose in bloom, August 2006" for that elusive photo -- makes more sense.

That's mostly true, most of the time. But in another paragraph, quoting from a description of the Library of Congress's effort to archive all Twitter messages since 2006, Anderson also shows us why metadata is not always an issue:

Each tweet is a JSON file, containing an immense amount of metadata in addition to the contents of the tweet itself: date and time, number of followers, account creation date, geodata, and so on.

That is, the data comes with "an immense amount of metadata" automatically, because of the way Twitter (wisely) designed its system. And even for datasets that require metadata to be applied by hand, crowdsourcing is proving an efficient and low-cost way of providing it.

Other issues raised by Anderson are that digital goods need to be backed up, and secure, but that's hardly rocket science: open source solutions that cost nothing to acquire (but not to run, obviously) have been around for years. His main concern, however, seems to be about the physical infrastructure required:

Digital warehouses are more expensive to build. Site planning is a major undertaking. A physical warehouse is something a small business owner can buy and construct with relative ease. They aren’t expensive (a concrete pad, a sheet metal structure, some crude HVAC, and a security system is usually all it takes). A digital warehouse is expensive to construct -- servers, site planning, redundant power requirements, high-grade HVAC, earthquake-proofing, and so forth. This means that digital goods have to work off a much higher fixed warehouse cost.

It seems unlikely that it is cheaper to build a typical physical warehouse than to install a typical LAMP stack on rented commodity servers in a few different geographical locations (or in the cloud) to provide resiliency and backups. This exposes the central problem with Anderson's argument about the amount of data that must be handled, and the necessity for huge and expensive infrastructure to handle it: he seems to be lumping together very different kinds of digital data.

In the realm of digital goods, we’re reaching a point at which we’re facing trade-offs. Already, some data sets are propagating at a rate that exceeds Moore’s Law, which may still accurately predict our ability to expand capacity. And these are purposeful data sets. As data becomes an effect of just living -- traffic monitoring software, GPS outputs, tweets, reviews, star ratings, emails, blog posts, song recommendations, text messages -- we as a collective will easily outstrip Moore’s Law with our data. If there’s no place to put it, and nobody to manage it, does it exist?

Yes, genomic data is spewing out of DNA sequencers at an incredible rate; yes, the Large Hadron Collider produces almost unimaginable quantities of data. But these are exceptions: nobody is talking about letting the general public access this stuff in the same way that they can download media files, say. As I've pointed out in a previous post, we are fast approaching the point where we could store every Spotify track on a single hard disc, and the same will soon be true for every film, book -- and academic article.

For the latter, despite Anderson's title, it really is the case that storing and sharing them is nearly free, pretty easy and mostly trivial, which is why open access makes sense and is constantly gaining ground. The sooner traditional publishers stop fearing and fighting this trend, the sooner they can embrace and enjoy the possibilities this new abundance opens up for them.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: data, kent anderson, open access, publishing
Companies: amazon

Beyond Open Access: Open Source Scientific Software

from the sauce-for-the-goose,-sauce-for-the-gander dept

Although the traditional image of a science laboratory typically consists of a room full of test tubes or microscopes, the reality is that computers now play a central role there, just as they do for business and life in general.

Computers need software, and some of that software will be specially written or adapted from existing code to meet the particular needs of the scientists' work. This makes computer software a vital component of the scientific process. It also means that being able to check that code for errors is as important as being able to check the rest of the experiment's methodology. And yet very rarely can other scientists do that, because the code employed is not made available.

A new paper in Science points out that this needs to change:

The publication and open exchange of knowledge and material form the backbone of scientific progress and reproducibility and are obligatory for publicly funded research. Despite increasing reliance on computing in every domain of scientific endeavor, the computer source code critical to understanding and evaluating computer programs is commonly withheld, effectively rendering these programs "black boxes" in the research work flow. Exempting from basic publication and disclosure standards such a ubiquitous category of research tool carries substantial negative consequences. Eliminating this disparity will require concerted policy action by funding agencies and journal publishers, as well as changes in the way research institutions receiving public funds manage their intellectual property (IP).

As that notes, the open exchange of knowledge and materials are obligatory for publicly-funded research, and there's no reason why it should be any different for software that is written in order to conduct the experiment. After all, this, too, has been funded by the tax-payers, who therefore have a right to enjoy the results. There may not be much they can do with it directly, but they can still benefit when other scientists are able to build on the code of others, instead of needing to re-invent the digital wheel for their own experiments.

The paper makes an important point that deserves a wide audience, because it's about a public policy issue. So it's a huge pity that, ironically, it is not published under an open access licence, and can only be read by Science's subscribers.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: open access, open source, science

White House Petition Demanding Open Access Requirements For Federally Funded Research

from the sign-on dept

For years we've discussed the issue of open access for federally funded research. Currently, NIH has a program that requires any of the research that receives its funds to be available via public open access databases a year after its published elsewhere. While this still allows federally funded research to be locked up under a questionable copyright for a year, it's certainly better than locking it up for eternity. And while there have been some unfortunate efforts to ban NIH and other government agencies from requiring such conditions, many in academia favor such information sharing.

There is currently a White House petition asking the government to require such free access to scientific journal articles coming out of taxpayer-funded research. The Obama administration has indicated interest in doing this in the past, but has not done so. Forcing the administration to respond to the petition may help nudge them in the right direction. The petition still needs a lot more signatures, though, so get signing.

Filed Under: nih, open access, petition, research, white house

Harvard And MIT Back Open Education With $60 Million Online Learning Project

from the another-tipping-point? dept

News that Harvard University is the latest to join the growing revolt against the exorbitant pricing of academic journals caused something of a stir recently -- although it has been pointed out that its case would be stronger if it followed its own advice and made the Harvard Business Review open access, or at least cheaper.

But here's an area where Harvard, together with MIT, is being more pro-active in helping to make knowledge more widely available online:

EdX is a joint partnership between The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and Harvard University to offer online learning to millions of people around the world. EdX will offer Harvard and MIT classes online for free. Through this partnership, the institutions aim to extend their collective reach to build a global community of online learners and to improve education for everyone.

EdX will build on both universities’ experience in offering online instructional content. The technological platform recently established by MITx, which will serve as the foundation for the new learning system, was designed to offer online versions of MIT courses featuring video lesson segments, embedded quizzes, immediate feedback, student-ranked questions and answers, online laboratories and student-paced learning. Certificates of mastery will be available for those who are motivated and able to demonstrate their knowledge of the course material.

MIT's MITx platform already offers some MIT courses online, and is open source:

EdX will release its learning platform as open-source software so it can be used by other universities and organizations that wish to host the platform themselves. Because the learning technology will be available as open-source software, other universities and individuals will be able to help edX improve and add features to the technology.

The hope is that other universities will join with Harvard and MIT to make EdX one of the primary platforms for online learning. Interestingly, it will also be used to research how people learn using digital technology -- and how it can be deployed more effectively:

MIT and Harvard will use the jointly operated edX platform to research how students learn and how technologies can facilitate effective teaching both on-campus and online. The edX platform will enable the study of which teaching methods and tools are most successful. The findings of this research will be used to inform how faculty use technology in their teaching, which will enhance the experience for students on campus and for the millions expected to take advantage of these new online offerings.

This looks like an important move for online learning, not least because of the scale of the financial support:

The initiative will be overseen by a not-for-profit organization based in Cambridge, Mass., to be owned and governed equally by the two universities. MIT and Harvard have committed to a combined $60 million ($30 million each) in institutional support, grants and philanthropy to launch the collaboration.

Those funds and the projects they will catalyze could boost efforts to make university courses more widely available, complementing the growing success of open access in opening up published materials.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: education, edx, harvard, mit, open access

Even Harvard Can't Afford Subscriptions To Academic Journals; Pushes For Open Access

from the says-it-all dept

Techdirt has published several posts recently about the growing anger among scholars over the way their work is exploited by academic publishers. But there's another angle to the story, that of the academic institutions who have to pay for the journals needed by their professors and students. Via a number of people, we learn that the scholars' revolt has spread there, too:

We write to communicate an untenable situation facing the Harvard Library. Many large journal publishers have made the scholarly communication environment fiscally unsustainable and academically restrictive. This situation is exacerbated by efforts of certain publishers (called "providers") to acquire, bundle, and increase the pricing on journals.

Harvard’s annual cost for journals from these providers now approaches $3.75M. In 2010, the comparable amount accounted for more than 20% of all periodical subscription costs and just under 10% of all collection costs for everything the Library acquires. Some journals cost as much as $40,000 per year, others in the tens of thousands. Prices for online content from two providers have increased by about 145% over the past six years, which far exceeds not only the consumer price index, but also the higher education and the library price indices.

As a result, Harvard's Faculty Advisory Council has come to the following conclusion:

major periodical subscriptions, especially to electronic journals published by historically key providers, cannot be sustained: continuing these subscriptions on their current footing is financially untenable. Doing so would seriously erode collection efforts in many other areas, already compromised.

So what's the solution? Open access, of course. Here are the Faculty Advisory Council's suggestions for how to promote it:

1. Make sure that all of your own papers are accessible by submitting them to DASH [Digital Access to Scholarship at Harvard] in accordance with the faculty-initiated open-access policies.

2. Consider submitting articles to open-access journals, or to ones that have reasonable, sustainable subscription costs; move prestige to open access.

3. If on the editorial board of a journal involved, determine if it can be published as open access material, or independently from publishers that practice pricing described above. If not, consider resigning.

If one of the world's top and presumably wealthiest universities says the current approach to academic publishing "cannot be sustained", you know that something is seriously wrong with that system. Coupled with the more than 10,000 academics who have now joined the Elsevier Boycott, this latest turn of events suggests that the tipping point for open access is close.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: academic publisher, harvard, open access

Open Access And The Art Of Contract Hacking

from the that's-sneaky dept

Open Access continues to gain momentum, as more and more researchers seek to make their work freely available online. One way of doing that is by modifying the contract that academic publishers routinely send to potential authors, inserting a clause that allows digital copies to be distributed.

That's been working quite well, but some publishers are starting to object, as Freedom To Tinker blogger Andrew Appel discovered recently (link found via BoingBoing.) The Association of Computing Machinery, which claims to be "the world’s largest educational and scientific computing society", sent him an email that stated it "does not accept copyright Addenda that exceed the liberal rights retained by authors under ACM’s Copyright Policy and the exclusive grant of copyright to ACM as publisher".

But Appel has come up with a neat idea for getting round this block:

In the strange field of computer science, we publish most of our scholarly articles in refereed conferences. In other fields they have unrefereed conferences and refereed journals. We have journals too, but they are less important than the top conferences. In a typical CS conference, 200 or 300 papers are submitted, three months later they have been refereed and 30 or 50 papers are accepted; three weeks later the authors must send in their full-length refereed articles as camera-ready PDF files. Then the conference proceedings must appear (in print and online) within a short time, a few weeks later, when the conference convenes.

Imagine, then, he says, if enough of those authors of the accepted papers simply wrote in a change to their publishing contracts regardless of what publishers might have said about accepting them. The publisher could, in theory, reject those papers, but then it would have a rather thin conference volume, since it could not easily find alternatives to fill the missing pages in the short time period available. As Appel says:

If the volume appears but missing three-fourths of its papers, then that conference is effectively dead, and may never recover in future years.

The publisher is unlikely to run that risk, and so will probably acquiesce to open access for those papers.

Of course, this approach will only work in those disciplines that have such conferences and refereed conference volumes produced to tight deadlines. But that's not really a problem. This isn't about converting the entire academic publishing industry to open access overnight, it's about keeping up the pressure to move there sooner rather than later.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: contract hacking, open access, publishing, research

UK Publishers Association Outraged It Wasn't Consulted Ahead Of The Public Over Open Access To Publicly-Funded Research

from the entitlement-much? dept

While the global boycott of Elsevier by academics continues to gain momentum and signatures – at the time of writing, the number is approaching 9000 – there's an open access storm in a teacup brewing in the UK.

The main grant-giving body in the UK, Research Councils UK (RCUK), spends around $4.8 billion each year supporting research across all fields. Since that money comes from the British taxpayer, the RCUK adopted an open access policy some years back:

As the public bodies charged with investing tax payers money in science and research, the Research Councils take very seriously their responsibilities in making the outputs from this research publicly available -- not just to other researchers, but also to potential users in business, Government and the public sector, and also to the public.

That open access policy was fairly lax, and so it is proposing to tighten up the publishing requirements for research that it funds, as an article in the Times Higher Education (THE) explains:

The policy, which RCUK hopes to adopt by the summer, stipulates that the final version of papers produced with funding from any of the science research councils must be made freely available online within six months of publication.

Sounds pretty reasonable, you might think -- after all, this still allows commercial publishers six months' exclusivity for work that the public paid for. Indeed, many open access advocates would say that it is too generous, since the public really has a right to see the work it funded as soon as it is published.

And yet some people aren't happy about the RCUK's plans:

the Publishers Association, which represents UK publishing companies, criticised the proposals and said it had not been consulted.

Well, here's an amazing coincidence: I am a UK taxpayer, and therefore contribute directly to the funding of all this research, and yet strangely the RCUK didn't consult me either. Maybe it thought I could just read the short consultation document it has now released (pdf) and offer my thoughts based on that, along with everyone else.

Which, of course, the Publishers Association is also welcome to do. Apparently, though, it thinks it is entitled to preferential treatment here, largely on the basis that its members have been allowed to profit from restricting access to publicly-funded research in the past, and therefore have a right to dictate terms of its release in the future:

"No evidence or impact assessment is offered for the effect of six-month embargoes on the large majority of articles published [in] subscription [journals].

But why should it make such an assessment? What the RCUK is talking about is possibly reducing slightly the huge profits publishers have been making from restricting access to public-funded research. It's not depriving publishers of what is rightfully theirs, it's giving back to the public what should never have been taken away in the first place.

This is why the whole open access debate -- both in the UK and US -- is surreal: publishers are trying to argue that they have a right to windfall profits from work done by publicly-funded researchers. Of course the publishers always insist that they do make a contribution -- in fact, the Publishers Association makes precisely that claim in the article quoted above, along with a few others:

"[The policy] takes no account of the role of publishers in scholarly communication, makes no reference to sustainability or the management of peer review, offers no practical policy for funding [author-pays] open access while dictating firm and onerous requirements for mandatory deposit on short embargoes."

But scholarly publishers do practically nothing. Academics carry out the research, and write it up -- zero cost to publishers. They then submit the paper to a journal's editor, who sends the paper out to referees for review. Generally, the editor and referees are academics who carry out all this work for nothing, simply because it is an accepted thing to do in their culture. Once the paper is accepted, the publishers might, at most, edit and format it before sticking it up on a Web site -- none of which is an onerous task demanding subscriptions running to thousands of dollars a year.

Of course, that makes the reference to the "sustainability or the management of peer review" rather rich, to say the least: publishers have little to do with either -- academics handle it for nothing. And as for "funding [author-pays] open access", well, guess what? If institutions don't have to pay high subscription fees, they can afford to cover the open access ones. Indeed, as Techdirt pointed out last year, the profits alone from academic publishing would be enough to fund open access to every research paper in every field.

So the question once more is not: How will we pay for open access? But rather: Why on earth are we still paying publishers for so much less than what we could have for a lower price with immediate open access?

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: open access, publishers, uk
Companies: publishers association

Elsevier Backs Down, Removes Support For Research Works Act As Elsevier Boycott Grows

from the boycott's-work dept

While it never got as much attention as the GoDaddy boycott, it appears the growing boycott of academics, refusing to publish papers in any Reed Elsevier journal, has caused the company to back down. It has now announced that it no longer supports the Research Works Act. That's the bill -- for which Elsevier was a major backer -- that would bar the government from requiring open and free access (after a period of time) to government-funded research:

While we continue to oppose government mandates in this area, Elsevier is withdrawing support for the Research Work Act itself. We hope this will address some of the concerns expressed and help create a less heated and more productive climate for our ongoing discussions with research funders.

Of course, then it immediately complains about the kinds of mandates that the Act would have disallowed:

Cooperation and collaboration are critical because different kinds of journals in different fields have different economics and models. Inflexible mandates that do not take those differences into account and do not involve the publisher in decision making can undermine the peer-reviewed journals that serve an essential purpose in the research community. Therefore, while withdrawing support for the Research Works Act, we will continue to join with those many other nonprofit and commercial publishers and scholarly societies that oppose repeated efforts to extend mandates through legislation.

That's pretty ridiculous actually. None of these mandates "undermine" these journals in any way -- unless you consider their insane set up (free writing, free editing, full copyright ownership, and subscriptions that cost tens of thousands of dollars) some sort of divine right. The mandates refer to federally funded research, which should be accessible by the public since they paid for the research in the first place. Elsevier doesn't pay for the research. Hell, they don't even pay the researcher for their paper. Or the peer reviewers for their work. So forgive me for not shedding any tears if Elsevier has to learn to adapt to only being able to have the exclusive rights to a paper for a year.

Still, with Elsevier dropping its support, hopefully it means that the original backers of the poorly thought out bill, Reps. Darrel Issa and Carolyn Maloney will drop the bill entirely. Instead, I'd very much like to see much greater support for Rep. Mike Doyle's counter-proposal, which would mandate that federally funded research be made available to the public.

Update: And.... now Issa has said that he won't move forward on the bill and (more importantly) that he now understands the importance of "open access" and how it's "the wave of the future."

Filed Under: academics, boycotts, darrell issa, journals, open access, peter suber, publishing, tim gowers
Companies: elsevier