EPS report gets mixed reviews

A report on the current state of scholarly publishing in the UK will provide the government an evidence base for the first time. The report was commissioned to enable policy development on promotion, support and development of a world class scholarly communications system in the UK. But critics say the report is biased and too limited in scope.

The Research Information Network (RIN), the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Research Councils UK (RCUK) commissioned the review, which looked into the operation and costs of scholarly journal publishing. Market consultants Electronic Publishing Services (EPS) carried out the research, before a panel put together of representatives of the research, publishing and library communities checked the data and the conclusions. The panel was created by the sponsors.
The report presents the evidence available in six areas: the volume and value of the academic journal market, journal supply-side economics, usage, citations and impact factors, disciplinary differences and costs and impact of open access journals and of digital repositories.

Stevan Harnad, a supporter of open access through self archiving, accused the report of slanting towards the publishing lobby with a bias towards authors paying publishers to make their article OA for them, instead of self-archiving it for themselves.

Professor Charles Oppenheim, a consultant on the report confirmed that whereas he is in favour of self-archiving mandates, his own brief from the commissioners of the report had imposed certain constraints on its form and content. He said, “Stevan's criticisms are appropriate, but there were constraints the research team worked under. It had a very precise brief to critically evaluate what research had been done regarding the UK scholarly journals industry, and what gaps there were in said research. Within those constraints, I think the team did a good job.”

EPS welcomed the debate, pointing out it was not specifically asked to look at the issue of self-archiving, rather to seek out evidence relating to whether traditional (subscription-based) journals are more likely to be cited than OA journals.

David Worlock, chairman, EPS said, “Criticism of the report’s summary of the evidence on article accessibility was strong at the STM publishers key annual meeting at Frankfurt in October. Put these comments alongside Professor Harnad’s views that “it is glaringly obvious that the questions, answers and interpretations have been slanted toward the interests of the publishing lobby rather than those of the research community” and it is clear that the report achieved some of the balance and objectivity that it sought.”

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!