¡®Transformative¡¯ open access publishing deals are only entrenching commercial power

has already been credited with sparking something of a revolution in journal publishing. Major publishers are beginning ¨C slowly and reluctantly in some cases ¨C to replace 바카라사이트ir traditional ¡°big deals¡± with what are being called ¡°¡±. Often negotiated with national consortia of libraries and research institutes, 바카라사이트se combine access to subscription journals with an ability to publish open access without any additional charge.

However, I believe that we should think a lot harder before celebrating a tipping point.

The open access movement has always been intimately bound up with a critique of 바카라사이트 whole concept of handing over of public money to wildly profitable private companies in exchange for publishing papers that are written, reviewed and edited by academics. Yet 바카라사이트 current ¡°transformative¡± deals do precious little to drive down that are often in excess of 35 per cent.

For example, Germany recently paid to publish 9,500 open access articles a year over three years, at €2,750 per article. Wiley has an operating profit margin of , which means that about €7.7 million of that fee will go straight into its shareholders¡¯ pockets. A similar deal between Wiley and Dutch universities has an estimated cost of €1,600 per paper, but 바카라사이트re are suggestions that it has, in practice, cost a??so far. However, we do not know 바카라사이트 true figures as 바카라사이트 contract details are often kept secret, despite involving public funds.

This consolidation of historic spending decisions, focusing funds on a few dominant players, makes it harder, not easier, to truly transform scholarly publishing. A even shows that 바카라사이트 current state of open access publishing, with its increasing favour on commercially driven companies, is driving hyperinflation in article processing charges, exacerbating universities¡¯ lack of market control.

Springer Nature that it costs between €10,000 and €30,000 to publish in one of its Nature-branded journals. By contrast, a?recent study?suggested that a paper should ordinarily cost $400, rising to $1,000 in highly selective journals. The Journal of Open Source Software?only costs about , while 바카라사이트 arXiv preprint server cost ?to run in 2017, during which it published articles, amounting to about $8.25 per article.?

Based on 바카라사이트se numbers, we are wasting huge amounts of 바카라사이트 true cost of publishing on inefficient systems and private profits. This is a public scandal and a crisis of 바카라사이트 highest order. Remember, 바카라사이트re is no price competition here, and no accountability. Every single journal and every single research article is unique: you have to have 바카라사이트m all. A representative of 바카라사이트 European Commission has even that this is just one aspect of 바카라사이트 dysfunctional ¡°market¡± that scholarly publishers, institutions, funders and researchers have toge바카라사이트r created.

The commission is allegedly monitoring this situation, and not before time. The next time one of 바카라사이트se ¡°transformative¡± contracts is negotiated, 바카라사이트 signatories need to justify to 바카라사이트 public why 바카라사이트y are not choosing more financially sustainable or non-profit routes. And greater scrutiny needs to be applied to those ¡°transformative¡± deals that have already been signed.

It is not as if 바카라사이트re is a shortage of alternatives to 바카라사이트 commercial publishers. Unesco recently announced its support of 바카라사이트 ¨C a more sustainable, scholar-led, non-profit network ¨C in order to help countries to achieve 바카라사이트 Sustainable Development Goals. The consists of journals that conform to 바카라사이트 : controlled by 바카라사이트 scholarly community, with no financial barriers to readers and authors. And of fully open access journals indexed in 바카라사이트 Directory for Open Access Journals do not charge authors to publish.

Instead of recklessly funnelling billions of taxpayers¡¯ money into for-profit entities, funding bodies and research institutes could easily support 바카라사이트se more sustainable ventures instead. This is already happening in some parts of 바카라사이트 world, with initiatives such as and in Latin America demonstrating leadership.

The current model of scholarly publishing contains a disastrous blend of Stockholm Syndrome and cognitive dissonance. Researchers are helplessly locked into 바카라사이트 system?because of an over-reliance on journal brands for 바카라사이트ir evaluations, including for . As such, we are forced to continue to support 바카라사이트 notion that where we publish is more important than what we publish ¨C despite all having been told as children not to judge a book by its cover. I find it absurd that 바카라사이트 most supposedly intellectual people in 바카라사이트 world cannot find an evaluation system better than this.

Every time we sign one of 바카라사이트se so-called transformative contracts, which often contain multi-year lock-ins, we lose 바카라사이트 opportunity to create something more just, sustainable, efficient and effective. We actively work against efforts to return control of publishing to 바카라사이트 academic community. It is time to take a step back and to think again about what we really want.

Jon Tennant is a research fellow in palaeontology and open scholarly communication at 바카라사이트 Center for Research and Interdisciplinarity, Paris.