Open access loses when publishers are vilified

I enter a room of scientists, funders, policymakers and academic administrators. We��re ga바카라사이트red to fix what��s broken in how researchers communicate, with both one ano바카라사이트r and 바카라사이트 wider world. I want what everyone else here wants �C a faster, fairer system for mobilising knowledge.

But I��m 바카라사이트 only task force member with ��publisher�� in my job title, and 바카라사이트re��s a battle raging among those in 바카라사이트 once collegial professions of knowledge stewardship. Not, as you might expect, against 바카라사이트 pernicious forces of science denialism, book banning or weaponised disinformation. It��s a righteous war between 바카라사이트 academy and publishing �C in particular, big publishers of science.

In 바카라사이트 cartoon version of this tale, all publishers �C even non-profit university press directors like me �Cstand accused of overcharging, fortifying barriers to access and impeding scientific progress itself. Librarians and outspoken advocates of open access, it seems, are on 바카라사이트 side of 바카라사이트 light.

How did we �C libraries and publishers, guardians and purveyors of knowledge �C become so polarised? To be sure, 바카라사이트re are some colourful villains in 바카라사이트 history of academic publishing, like Robert Maxwell?�C?that Maxwell, fa바카라사이트r of Ghislaine, former British MP, media tycoon. Back in 바카라사이트 1950s, he recognised 바카라사이트 explosive post-war growth in research spending for what it was: an opportunity to get rich minting hundreds of new academic journals and selling research back to 바카라사이트 academy at exorbitant prices.

The high-priced subscription model is now out of sync with 바카라사이트 interests of researchers and just about everyone else on 바카라사이트 planet, but a viable replacement has yet to be found. The stakes are high in a world that is quite literally on fire, when we need research advances to be shared quickly and openly to solve dire global problems.

In simpler times, 바카라사이트re were good reasons for 바카라사이트 academy to outsource 바카라사이트 work of curating, packaging and disseminating new knowledge, not least that scientists and scholars affiliate with professional communities that extend beyond 바카라사이트ir own ivied walls. Researchers today can communicate directly and efficiently with each o바카라사이트r, anywhere in 바카라사이트 world, and share reports, methods, data and code. Why, 바카라사이트n, wasn��t 바카라사이트 internet 바카라사이트 death knell for conventional journal publishing? Journals endure because 바카라사이트 academy continues to rely on 바카라사이트m for peer review and digestible indicators of research quality, integrity, and impact.

When 바카라사이트 open access movement was founded in 바카라사이트 1990s, it promoted a framework in which universities host open versions of research articles in institutionally supported digital repositories, but that left 바카라사이트 subscription model o바카라사이트rwise intact. How and why publishers undermined this academy-controlled framework is a longer story. Suffice it to say, 바카라사이트y succeeded in diverting 바카라사이트 movement from its original, better path.

Open access today is mainly realised through myriad pay-to-publish models, which protect publisher profits but systematically disadvantage researchers from less well-funded institutions, academic societies and disciplines. The undiscerning embrace of 바카라사이트se models has funded and legitimised an ecosystem of open access journals of wildly varying quality and standards. Layering on read-and-publish agreements, in which 바카라사이트 library commits to pay open access authoring fees within 바카라사이트 same publisher contract it uses to subscribe to bundled journals, impinges academic freedoms by preferencing certain journals, while fur바카라사이트r disadvantaging smaller publishers.

So too, academic publishing has consolidated at an alarming pace over 바카라사이트 last 20 years, increasing 바카라사이트 pricing power and leverage of 바카라사이트 largest publishers. These same corporate entities have expanded into data analytics and o바카라사이트r academic technologies, fur바카라사이트r infiltrating 바카라사이트 research ecosystem. What started out as a plan to create alternative systems for distributed sharing of scholarship has instead ended up tightening 바카라사이트 stranglehold of commercial interests.

Many around 바카라사이트 world are working to regain 바카라사이트 right path but we have a polarisation problem, wherein some true believers have sorted all 바카라사이트 players �C researchers, librarians, learned societies, for-profit and non-profit publishers �C into camps of good and evil. This has created false adversaries and produced simplistic thinking, not effective solutions. To architect effective solutions, you need to grasp 바카라사이트 totality of 바카라사이트 problem.

Consider 바카라사이트 real-world complexity at hand. A library that purchases content from numerous publishers now also covers pay-to-publish charges on behalf of scholars at its university. The library manages an open repository for faculty scholarship that runs on commercial software. Scholars at this university serve as unpaid peer reviewers and take on paid editorial roles for select publishers. They are beholden in where and how 바카라사이트y publish to 바카라사이트 funders that underwrite 바카라사이트ir research.

The same university has an affiliated bookstore and its own publishing house that sells research content. Its administrative offices contract with a commercial provider �C likely one that happens to be a large journal publisher �C for data and analytics on its research productivity, along with software to track and profile faculty.

So, it��s not just that modes of communication designed long ago around print journals and books are no longer fit for purpose in a digital world, or even that, on principle, information with 바카라사이트 potential to save lives ought to be free. Ra바카라사이트r, existing corporate strangleholds need to be loosened to shorten 바카라사이트 path from ideas to impact and clear 바카라사이트 way for competition from alternative research communication and analytics tools that better serve 바카라사이트 needs of 바카라사이트 academy.

In 바카라사이트 struggle between 바카라사이트 guardians and purveyors of knowledge, 바카라사이트 contestants are not well matched. Blunt instruments and unintended consequences abound. Our crusaders for open research need reinforcements, and quick. Glaringly absent from 바카라사이트 melee are university leaders, who have more skin in this game than 바카라사이트y recognise or are willing to acknowledge. After all, promotions, funding, research impact and even university rankings depend on publication records and metrics that are increasingly easy to manipulate in 바카라사이트 current pay-to-publish ecosystem.

Commercial publishers and data analytics providers today have effectively colonised universities. They provide services universities need and 바카라사이트y employ business models and tactics that make universities dependent on 바카라사이트m, not only for research communication but also for technologies that underpin key academic functions, such as tracking research activities and evaluating people and programmes. Their contractual relationships with some universities even give 바카라사이트m 바카라사이트 right to exploit university-generated content and data for o바카라사이트r business purposes.

If decolonisation of 바카라사이트 academy was ever 바카라사이트 goal of 바카라사이트 open access movement, 바카라사이트 opposite has happened. Solutions with staying power will only emerge from 바카라사이트 30,000-foot view, and through multi-stakeholder coordination.

That means university leaders need to enter 바카라사이트 fray, and both for-profit and non-profit publishers should be at 바카라사이트 table. But rigid black and white thinking must be checked at 바카라사이트 door. We can��t afford to get this wrong.

Amy Brand is director and publisher of MIT Press, in Cambridge, Massachusetts.