Summary paper prompts self archive debate

A report by the Publishing Research Consortium which reignited the debate about the impact of open access material on library journal subscriptions has been re-released in condensed version.

The study, originally published in November last year, found that more than a third of librarians believed their organisations were wasting money subscribing to paid-for journals when the same content was available for free on institutional repositories.

It found that 40% of librarians thought money could be saved by substituting journals for open access information and 38% believed that academic publishers should be concerned about libraries cancelling subscriptions.

The report , Self-Archiving and Journal Subscriptions: Co-existence or Competition?, concluded that the point at which subscriptions started to be cancelled may be closer than publishers might previously have believed.

It concluded: “In granting permission for self archiving publishers have, although it was not apparent at the time, potentially set up an alternative channel, and one over which they have a lower degree of control.”

The report found that 84% of librarians believed open access was a good thing because it challenged traditional publishers and more than 50% showed confidence in the reliability of open access content.

While they expressed a strong preference for material that was free, all other factors being equal, they remained concerned about quality. Peer reviewed material was considered preferable, with authors’ un-refereed original manuscripts seen as a poor substitute.

While the currency of the content was also considered important, it played second fiddle to cost considerations. Six-month embargo periods appeared not to be as much of a deterrent as publishers might have hoped. Only when delays reached 24 months did the final published article become more desirable than the open access version.

The report’s re-release is likely to reignite debate about how publishers should respond to the potential threat of open access. When IWR originally covered the story in December , its co-author Chris Beckett warned academic publishers: “It is risky to proceed on the presumption that there is no threat.”

Researchers and librarians will also be concerned at the accuracy of material made available through institutional repositories which has not been peer reviewed.

Like this story? Spread the news by clicking below:

 del.icio.us     Digg this     reddit!