STM manifesto rubbishes open access research

35 publishers and eight trade associations combine in attack on open access

A group of major publishers has issued a 10-point declaration of “selfevident” principles that must underpin scientific, technical and medical (STM) publishing.

The Brussels Declaration was issued on the eve of an EC conference on scientific publishing in Europe in an attempt to counter “unnecessary” EC intervention in STM publishing. Signed by 35 publishers and eight trade associations, it stresses the importance of the publishers’ role in peer review, condemns free availability of content, and dismisses research into the benefits of open access (OA) publishing as lacking rigour.

In its preamble, the declaration states: “Despite very significant investment and a massive rise in access to scientific information, our community continues to be beset by propositions and manifestos on the practice of scholarly publishing. Unfortunately, the measures proposed have largely not been investigated or tested in any evidence-based manner that would pass rigorous peer review.”

Michael Mabe, CEO of the International Association of STM Publishers, said: “Unnecessary government intervention risks disturbing the delicate
ecosystem of formal publication and damaging journals, and is to the detriment of the peer review system on which science and society depends.”

Mabe said: “Very few studies of STM publishing have been properly peer-reviewed. Last May’s EU Ecares report would have been rejected if it
had been, as would a number of other reports. The recent RIN/DTI baseline study makes clear how little is actually securely known about the publishing
system and how it works.

“The direct experience of many publishers is that free availability of The European parliament has recommended that all EU-funded research be made open accesscontent kills off subscriptions.”

One of the Brussels Declaration’s 10 point is that “open deposit of accepted manuscripts risks destabilising subscription revenues and undermining
peer review”. Peter Suber, editor of Open Access News, said: “Publishers who call for evidence have to live by evidence.”

But Suber welcomed the declaration’s endorsement of open access for data, which calls on publishers to encourage the public posting of raw
research data outputs.

www.stm-assoc.org