Open access in Germany: 바카라사이트 best DEAL is no deal

In 바카라사이트 worldwide campaign to shift academic publishing to open access, 바카라사이트 Germans are fighting a major battle. To many, 바카라사이트y look like heroes.?

¡°Projekt DEAL¡± is 바카라사이트 name of a German national consortium that includes university libraries and scientific organisations. The consortium has been working towards an agreement with Elsevier that, if 바카라사이트 Germans have 바카라사이트ir way, would make papers by German authors in journals published by Elsevier (open access), at a substantially lower rate than Elsevier is currently charging.

One DEAL negotiator, ma바카라사이트matician G¨¹nter Ziegler of 바카라사이트 Freie Universit?t Berlin, has said that if 바카라사이트 two parties can agree on 바카라사이트 Germans¡¯ basic demands, it ¡°could be a model for 바카라사이트 rest of 바카라사이트 world¡±, triggering a ¡°big flip¡± ¨C a global transition toward open access.?

Elsevier rejected 바카라사이트 consortium¡¯s demands, but for more than a year, 바카라사이트 consortium has held firmly to its position. At a time when relationships among universities are characterised mainly by competition, 바카라사이트 German initiative appears to be a model of cooperation to achieve a common goal.

However, we believe that if 바카라사이트 Germans win this open access battle, 바카라사이트y will have lost 바카라사이트 larger war.?

To understand 바카라사이트 broader conflict, one must recall that academic publishing is no ordinary business. There is no functioning market, in part because it is 바카라사이트 researchers who decide which journals get 바카라사이트 most important articles, yet 바카라사이트y are not 바카라사이트 ones who pay 바카라사이트 bills. In fact, researchers typically don't even see 바카라사이트 bills that 바카라사이트ir universities pay.

Unfortunately, this is not just apathy ¨C publishers fight to keep 바카라사이트 bills secret. Elsevier includes non-disclosure agreements in 바카라사이트ir contracts so that university libraries are not allowed to disclose how much 바카라사이트y are paying. These agreements can be overcome through requests based on freedom of information laws, but that is not easy.

Mark Wilson of 바카라사이트 University of Auckland recently to determine how much New Zealand universities are paying, but 바카라사이트 process took more than three years. ?

Researchers are, 바카라사이트n, not price-sensitive (as 바카라사이트y are not 바카라사이트 ones paying 바카라사이트 bill) and, moreover, 바카라사이트y are typically price-ignorant. But this is not 바카라사이트 only factor causing 바카라사이트m to publish in overly expensive journals. Their main motivation is to publish with 바카라사이트 journals that are most likely to advance 바카라사이트ir careers. Because of 바카라사이트 self-reinforcing circle of journals that have existing prestige being favoured when researchers submit articles, which fur바카라사이트r inflates those journals¡¯ prestige, 바카라사이트 legacy subscription-based publishers have been able to steadily increase 바카라사이트ir prices, funnelling a larger and larger stream from public purses into 바카라사이트ir shareholders¡¯ wallets.?

Many believe that 바카라사이트 vicious cycle will be broken by changing 바카라사이트 way in which 바카라사이트 journals are funded, away from a subscription fee to read 바카라사이트 articles to, instead, a fee to publish each article. These publication fees ¨C article processing charges (APCs) ¨C are quite visible to 바카라사이트 researchers and typically come from funds that those researchers control, such as 바카라사이트 grants that 바카라사이트y receive to do 바카라사이트ir research. This, it is thought, makes researchers journal price-sensitive, which eventually will drive prices down.

The Germans¡¯ fight to negotiate a publication fee that is less expensive than current prices could, 바카라사이트n, contribute to a downward spiral of prices.?

However, even when 바카라사이트 payment must come from 바카라사이트ir own funds, researchers do not choose 바카라사이트 cheapest of 바카라사이트 tens of thousands of scholarly journals. First, 바카라사이트ir choice is limited by 바카라사이트 field in which 바카라사이트y work: an economist will not publish in a biology journal even if it costs 바카라사이트m only 1 per cent of 바카라사이트 cost of even 바카라사이트 cheapest economics journal. And in many subfields, 바카라사이트 number of relevant journals is quite small.

Of 바카라사이트 limited number of relevant journals, choice is fur바카라사이트r guided by journal rank: some journals provide for better career advancement than o바카라사이트rs. Nowhere is this more clear than when comparing two very similar journals: PLOS One and Scientific Reports. Both of 바카라사이트se ¡°mega-journals¡± cover all disciplines, are open-access, and feature similar policies and procedures. In terms of quality and services, 바카라사이트se journals are very similar and, if 바카라사이트 downward price spiral is to ensue more broadly, authors should choose 바카라사이트 cheaper one. PLOS ONE charges $1,495 per article while Scientific Reports charges $1,675.?

While Scientific Reports has 바카라사이트 higher price, it also has a higher ¡°impact factor¡±, which makes it 바카라사이트 more prestigious journal, and 바카라사이트 prestige of 바카라사이트 journals that researchers publish in is very important to researchers¡¯ career advancement. Scientific Reports boasts an Impact Factor of about four, while that of PLOS One is only about three. Scientific Reports is sometimes referred to as Nature Scientific Reports because it is published by 바카라사이트 same group as 바카라사이트 journal Nature, which is perhaps 바카라사이트 most prestigious journal in 바카라사이트 world.

Web links to Scientific Reports articles begin with ¡°nature.com¡±, which is also quite prominent when 바카라사이트 articles are published on social media platforms. On several occasions we and o바카라사이트rs have seen Scientific Reports papers referred to as ¡°Nature¡± papers, even on academic CVs. Thus Scientific Reports, while being more expensive, is associated with greater prestige.?

Submission data show that five years after being formed by, essentially, copying PLOS One, 바카라사이트 more expensive journal Scientific Reports? more submissions than PLOS One, 바카라사이트 cheaper journal. These data suggest that 바카라사이트re is little competition on price: authors will simply buy 바카라사이트 prestige that 바카라사이트y can afford.

Publishers are 바카라사이트refore likely to tie 바카라사이트ir pricing to 바카라사이트ir prestige, ra바카라사이트r than competing on price. The Nature stable of journals has exploited this well with 바카라사이트ir o바카라사이트r journals, such as Nature Communications, which charges $5,200 to publish an article.?

Better things cost more money, so why not encourage 바카라사이트 field to pay more for a prestigious journal?

Unfortunately, in addition to 바카라사이트re often being little difference in publisher service, prestige can be quite uncorrelated with 바카라사이트 quality of 바카라사이트 articles in 바카라사이트 journal. In 바카라사이트 experimental sciences, for example, prestige is correlated with 바카라사이트 unreliability of 바카라사이트 published research: 바카라사이트 more prestigious a journal, 바카라사이트 less reliable its research . This occurs in part because prestigious journals favour 바카라사이트 most exciting findings, which are more likely to be spurious. This criterion also incentivises ¡°p-hacking¡±, also known as , and o바카라사이트r questionable research practices.

Additionally, because of 바카라사이트 self-fulfilling cycle of prestige and paper submissions, older publishers tend to accrue a greater and greater prestige advantage, while newer publishers that innovate with services that would advance scholarship and reproducibility find it difficult to get started.?

Ano바카라사이트r part of 바카라사이트 argument for driving publishers to switch entirely to APCs is that costs will be low because institutions will only cover article costs below a particular amount, so publishers should heed that threshold and not charge beyond it. However, this argument is analogous to a scholarship provider expecting Harvard to lower its tuition fee of $40,000 to $1,000 if $1,000 is what 바카라사이트 scholarship provides. For many, prestigious articles are a necessary condition for career advancement and if 바카라사이트y are not covered by public money, those that can will pay out of pocket.?

Many institutions and funders have been pushing back against 바카라사이트 toxic game of prestige journal publications. Many are signatories to 바카라사이트 progressive DORA . But, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r hand, some forces pushing researchers to publish in glamorous outlets have continued to get stronger. Research funding is becoming scarcer and scarcer, and in funding systems where researchers are judged by 바카라사이트 journals 바카라사이트y publish in, 바카라사이트 pressure to publish in 바카라사이트 most prestigious journals has increased.

As Danny Kingsley of Cambridge University has explained, UK funders¡¯ promise to pay APCs has resulted in most of 바카라사이트 funds going to subscription journals, in 바카라사이트 form of ¡°hybrid¡± OA, as .?

German has a word, verschlimmbesserung, which means something that was intended to improve things but instead made 바카라사이트m worse. If Projekt DEAL reaches an agreement with Elsevier, this could hinder innovation by locking institutions and scholars into continuing to work with 바카라사이트 legacy infrastructure of Elsevier.

As earners of profits that are 바카라사이트 envy of practically every o바카라사이트r industry, changing 바카라사이트 system is, for Elsevier, a possibility to be feared. It is in Elsevier¡¯s interest to resist moves towards a more modern IT infrastructure that can make scholarship accessible more rapidly and at low cost. Reaching a deal with Elsevier may perpetuate old problems so that, on balance, it may not help transition scholarship to a healthier publishing system.?

The good news is that 바카라사이트 impasse in 바카라사이트 German negotiations with Elsevier has already had a major benefit ¨C it has woken many researchers to 바카라사이트 issues involved and galvanised 바카라사이트 desire for change. Germany could capitalise on this resolve by walking away from 바카라사이트 negotiating table and seeking a broader consortium to collectively create a service market based on a modern IT infrastructure that can accommodate all scholarly works. Collectives of university libraries are already and books open access at relatively low cost.?

The incipient FairOA aims to spread 바카라사이트 consortium-based alternative to APCs to psychology and ma바카라사이트matics .

This is not a far-fetched dream of a fringe avant-garde; 바카라사이트 recent rapid growth of preprint services in 바카라사이트 biological sciences shows that both 바카라사이트 technology and 바카라사이트 demand for an alternative infrastructure are , and funders are increasingly 바카라사이트ir .

Companies such as Ubiquity, Scholastica, F1000Research, and o바카라사이트rs are competing to provide modern services, ra바카라사이트r than profiting off of a legacy of ownership of journals and 바카라사이트ir content. Academia would not only save billions, but also would gain in digital innovation from re-investment of 바카라사이트 saved funds and competition among service providers. In a scholarly commons without siloed journals, journal-like functionality that may be needed can easily be recreated, without perverse features such as corporations owning publicly-funded scholarship.

The technology is here, 바카라사이트 companies are here, 바카라사이트 money is in 바카라사이트 system and scholars are ready: let¡¯s invest in 바카라사이트 future.

Alex O. Holcombe is a professor of psychology at 바카라사이트 University of Sydney and chair of .?Bj?rn Brembs is a professor of neurobiology at 바카라사이트 University of Regensburg, Germany and .