February 9, 2004 Science and Technology Committee House of Commons 7 Millbank London SW1P 3JA UNITED KINGDOM Dear Dr Gibson and Members of the Science and Technology Committee: On behalf of the Public Library of Science, I am pleased to submit the following written evidence to the Science and Technology Committee's inquiry into scientific publication practices. I congratulate you and your colleagues for your initiative and leadership in pursuing this timely and important inquiry. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) is a grassroots, world-wide, not-for-profit organization of scientists, physicians, and members of the public working to make the world's scientific and medical literature a freely available resource, easily accessible to anyone, anywhere, with an Internet connection through open, online public libraries. The deepening crisis in scientific publishing as journal prices continue to escalate will restrict comprehensive access to the scientific literature to a dwindling elite at a handful of wealthy research institutions in the advanced economies. While action to reduce subscription costs would be welcome, it will ultimately be necessary for the scientific community to abandon the unstable, outdated, restrictive and fundamentally anti- competitive fee-for-access publication system. Only when we transition to an open access system - in which publishers are paid a fair price for the services they provide to the scientific community, and all reports become immediately freely available online - will we have a sustainable and equitable system for publishing science that serves the interests of the public, the public institutions that support scientific research, and scientists themselves. My colleagues and I at PLoS have been advocating for open access for over five years. Last year we joined London's BioMed Central as an operating open access publisher with the prominent launch of our journal PLoS Biology. We are encouraged by the recent momentum towards open access, highlighted last year by support from the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Society, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and many other important funding agencies, widespread favorable accounts of our movement in the international press, and enormous enthusiasm within the scientific community. I would like to request the opportunity to present oral evidence to the committee. I and the members the PLoS board and staff would be happy to answer your questions about the principles and practice of open access publication and share our experience as scientists advocating and carrying out open access. In my capacities as a scientist, educator, former director of the National Institutes of Health, and president of Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, I wholeheartedly support your inquiry into scientific publishing and trust that you will agree with PLoS about the extraordinary possibilities afforded by open access. Sincerely, Harold E. Varmus, M.D. Chair, Board of Directors, and co-Founder, Public Library of Science President and CEO, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Nobel Laureate in Medicine or Physiology Science and Technology Committee – Inquiry into Scientific Publications Evidence from the Public Library of Science TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Executive Summary 2. Scientific Publishing and its Stakeholders 3. What is Wrong with the Existing System of Scholarly Publishing? 4. The Open Access Business Model 5. Why is Open Access Important? 6. Who Pays for Open Access? 7. The Transition to Open Access 8. Common Concerns about Open Access 9. Recommendations and Actions 10. Supporting Documents • Appendix A. About the Public Library of Science • Appendix B. “Why PloS Became a Publisher” • Appendix C. Statements of support for open access • Appendix D. The PLoS UK Editorial Board • Appendix E. List of UK Signatories • Appendix F. Press Articles on Open Access Executive Summary “I want a poor student to have the same means of indulging his learned curiosity, of following his rational pursuits, of consulting the same authorities, of fathoming the most intricate inquiry as the richest man in the kingdoms." Sir Antonio Panizzi, Principal Librarian of the British Museum, 1836 1.1 What was an impossible ideal in 1836 — making humanity’s treasury of scientific and medical knowledge freely available to all – is today within our reach. We now have the means to create an online public library containing the collected published work of every scientist and physician, to scientists, teachers, students, physicians and the public around the world. 1.2 This could be accomplished without sacrificing the essential services provided by scientific publishers and without spending any more money than we currently spend to buy a small academic elite limited access to the research literature. We need only replace the outdated, inefficient and unsustainable fee-for-access business model with a new “open access” model supported by a growing international coalition of scientists, funding agencies and publishers. 1.3 The traditional fee-for-access model is a vestige of an era when printing articles in paper journals was the most efficient way to disseminate new scientific discoveries and ideas. When each copy of a journal represented a significant cost for printing and distribution, it made sense for recipients to pay for each copy delivered. 1.4 With the Internet now the most effective and widely used medium for communicating the results of scientific research, charging for use is now economically irrational and limiting access to subscribers is needlessly restrictive. 1.5 Instead of allowing publishers to recover the costs of online publication (peer review, expert editing, production and archiving) by taking ownership of the articles and charging the readers and their agents for access, published scientific works could be made freely available to all simply by paying the costs related to each article at the time of its publication. 1.6 Open access publishing will not involve new expenses, nor will it place a financial burden on individual researchers. Under the fee-for-access system, the governments, funding agencies, universities and other organizations that sponsor scientific research pay virtually all of the costs of scientific publishing through the funds indirectly provided to research libraries. In an open access system, these same parties would pay, but they would get far more for their money. 1.7 This simple change in the way we pay for publication would involve no compromise of the traditional values of scientific publication. The essential role that scientific journals play in orchestrating peer-review, editing, and stratification of research articles is independent of the way costs are recovered. We can maintain a vibrant scientific publishing industry by paying publishers a fair price for the service they provide the scientific community, while providing comprehensive, universal access to the scientific literature. 1.8 The fee-for-access system is anti-competitive. Scientific papers are not interchangeable, and every journal has a monopoly on the papers that scientists have chosen to publish in it. These monopolies over an essential commodity prevent market forces from keeping subscription costs rational, leading to the current unsustainable serials crisis. 1.9 By shifting from a monopolistic market on scientific knowledge, to a free-market for publishing services, open access will restore market efficiencies to scientific publishing. By treating the costs of publication as costs of research and including funds in research grants, monies available for publication will scale with publication expenses. Thus, open access is intrinsically sustainable, whereas the current system clearly is not. 1.10 Scientific knowledge was never meant to be a commodity – it is an invaluable public good. Publications describing publicly funded research belong in the public domain, where they can do the greatest good for science and humanity. Recommendations The UK government – acting in the public interest and as the major sponsor of scientific research in the UK – should act decisively to remedy the current crisis in scientific publishing and catalyze the transition to open access by: 1.11 Establishing a UK national (or Commonwealth) online public library for research literature. This library would work in collaboration with the US National Library of Medicine and other national libraries to ensure that every published research article – especially those arising from publicly funded research – are securely archived in perpetuity and are freely and readily available to, and useable by, the public. 1.12 Asserting that restrictions on the distribution and use of research articles describing publicly funded research are inconsistent with the goals of the government in funding research. 1.13 Mandating (following a suitable transition period) that all research articles arising from publicly-funded research be made immediately and permanently available to the public by open access publication and deposition in a suitable public repository at the time of publication. 1.14 Designating a portion of university funding for the support of open access publication charges to provide the means for faculty and researchers (particularly those without specific grant funding) to publish in open access journals. 1.15 Designating a portion of NHS funding for the support of open access publication charges to provide the means for clinicians and researchers (particularly those without specific grant funding) to publish