The case for open-access publishing
Jinfo Blog

27th January 2009

By Penny Crossland

Item

The case for open-access publishing received another boost today. The Joint Information Systems Committee (www.jisc.ac.uk) published the key findings of its commissioned research into the economic and social implications of an open-access publishing model (http://digbig.com/4yecy), and concluded that huge savings could be made using new models for scholarly publishing. The study was led by Charles Oppenheim of Loughborough University (http://digbig.com/4yedc) and John Houghton from the Centre of Strategic Economic Studies at Victoria University, Melbourne (http://digbig.com/4yedb) and analysed the additional cost-benefits to be achieved from enhanced access to research findings. According to the reports, the costs of scientific publishing to the UK higher education sector were around £5 billion in 2007, and the authors conclude that enormous savings could be made using any of the three models proposed. Estimated costs using the subscription model which involves reader charges and use restriction would be £230 million per year; OA publishing with free access would cost the HE sector around £150 million and OA self-archiving with peer review services about £110 million. UK plc would also benefit to the tune of £172 million per year due to greater accessibility to research. OA publishing is a winner then. The Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) lists more than 3,500 peer-reviewed journals worldwide and some publishers such as BioMed Central (www.biomedcentral.com) and The Public Library of Science (www.plos.org) have been in the business of open-access publishing for several years. Scientists, however despite apparent enthusiasm for the idea, are still reluctant to publish in open-access. (http://digbig.com/4yedk) It would seem that it is a case of ‘I will, if you will’.

« Blog