Given the significant impact that online technology has had on improving research, proponents contend that expanding the use of that technology to increase global access would no doubt have a positive effect on scholarship; however, the legislation has sparked a fierce debate. At the heart of that debate lies questions of how the policy will impact peer-review, challenge current publishing policies, and impact the budgets of the federal agencies.
The American Chemical Society(ACS), the world’s largest scientific society, and the Association of American Publishers (AAP), with some 260 member publishers around the country, are two of the most vocal forces opposing the bill. In letters to Senators Cornyn, Lieberman, and Susan Collins (R-Maine), opponents argue that the bill would destroy the peer-review system, which ensures journal quality, and would pit federal agencies as competitors against scholarly publishers.
The ACS’s publications arm and the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS), a rich database of chemical information and literature, in 2004 earned $40 million for the society after accounting for the divisions’ publication expenditures.9 If their arguments against the bill hold water, the ACS has much at stake, at least commercially. But what of their societal mission "to encourage in the broadest and most liberal manner the advancement of chemistry and all its branches"?
During their national conference in August of 2005, after ACS came out against the NIH’s open access database PubChem, a growing number of ACS members began to challenge the society’s leadership, citing the contradiction in the society’s stance. "I am growing increasingly upset with their direction," said Chris Reed, an inorganic chemist at the University of California, Riverside in a 2005 article published in Nature. Some members have even wondered how the society could support limits to free access when it would benefit their own research.
Proponents of FRPAA note that the bill stresses the deposit of manuscripts post-peer review and implements a six-month embargo on public access, to acknowledge publishers’ contributions and to avoid competition
with their subscribers. According to the bill’s FAQ, authored by Senator Cornyn, "The six month embargo will preserve the important role of journals and publishers in the peer review process. This provision balances important interests and ensures that research is widely available while it still is useful."
In addition to the bill’s own provisions, the idea that open access will damage subscriptions remains an open-ended question with some evidence pointing to the contrary. The few scholarly societies that have chosen to allow their authors to publish online, open access versions of their work after publication demonstrate that open access has had little effect on their ability to sell subscriptions in addition to the content they offer for free. A key example of this is the American Physical Society (APS). More than 30,000 articles a year are submitted to the APS, with some institutions paying upwards of $20,000 for full access to their publications. The societyallows physicists to post their work anywhere that allows free access and without any delay. The editor, Martin Blume, notes that their policy has forced him to improve their publications and that subscribers, especially institutions, are still willing to pay. Since APS’s journals date back to 1893, there is little or no comparison between what subscribers get access to for a fee and what an open access government depository could provide. Some argue that with postings that include and credit the article’s original publisher, the federal agency would seem to serve less as a competitor and more as a means to attract subscribers seeking the wealth of past publication that only for-fee services currently provide.
Although proponents argue that the bill protects peer-review by definition, some add that broadening access to scholars worldwide may also result in increased scrutiny of published work, which would in turn ensure greater quality control in scholarship. The January 2006 scandal of South Korean scientist Dr. Hwang Woo-suk, whose fabricated cloning research was published in the highly reputable Science, has brought speculation on the peer-review practice as a whole. Robert Terry, senior policy adviser at the U.K. medical charity the Wellcome Trust, suggests that adopting open access publishing models could be the key to detecting plagiarism and other problems. "We think it would be harder for people to plagiarize work once you can do extensive word searches and access more material free on the Internet," said Terry in an interview with the BBC in 2006, shortly after the scandal broke.14 Scrutiny by a community of experts, made possible by increased access, may in fact be the extra checks the peer-review practice needs to shore up the process of ensuring accuracy in research.
Opponents also contend that creating and maintaining the required online depositories would divert dollars away from supporting research.15 The NIH’s PubMed Central depository, according to agency estimates, has cost the agency less than 1 percent of its overall budget.16 It is, perhaps, a very small price to pay for the potential impact of opening the doors to such important scholarship.
Sources:
Maris, E. "Chemical Reaction." Nature. 437 (6) 2005: 807-809.
Jaschik, S. "In Whose Interest." Inside Higher Ed. 15 June 2006.
Rincon, P. and J. Amos. Interview. BBC News. United Kingdom, 10 January 2006.
Baum, R. “Take a Stand.” Chemical & Engineering News. 84 (23) 2006.
New England Journal of Medicine. 352 (2005) 17.
