iPubSci: An Alternative to Unaffordable Science Journals

12/5/11

(Page 2 of 3)

to the iPubSci developer and the publishers. If a new journal issue contains, for example, 50 articles, then buying all of them would cost $64.50, a pretty high price for a single journal issue. As with iTunes, users could get a price break on buying an entire issue of a journal. However, it is much more likely that individual article sales will garner virtually the entire market. That’s because science has become so specialized, hardly anyone would want to read every single article, or even a majority of articles, in one particular journal issue. An exception might be a special review issue that is focused on a single topic.

Why is it that journal costs are so high? For too long, scientific journal publishers have enjoyed a virtual monopoly over their content. The publisher’s profit margins, as the British newspaper The Guardian recently reported, are enormous (in the range of 40 percent). How are such lofty profits margins achieved? There are three primary reasons. First and foremost are the enormous subscription costs of the journals themselves, many of which charge libraries thousands of dollars per year. The second reason for their colossal profits is that, unlike most books and magazines, the content they publish is acquired for free. Scientists don’t get paid for writing journal articles, and peer review and editing of many of these articles is often done at no cost to the publishers as well. An analysis of the industry by Deutsche Bank suggested that “the publisher adds relatively little value to the publishing process.” Finally, the journals have no real competition for any particular periodical. If you want that particular title, you must buy it from the publisher; there are no other sources available.

The economics of open access journals are complex and evolving. A detailed comparison of open access publishing vs. monopoly journals in 2004 laid the groundwork for defining some of the economic factors at work in the science publishing industry. The study revealed that for-profit journals are hugely expensive, on either a cost-per-page or cost-per-citation basis, compared to non-profit journals. Similarly, an analysis of the costs and benefits of library site licenses representing for-profit academic journals revealed that these are not always beneficial to the scientific community compared to individual subscriptions. Biotechs are at a significant disadvantage compared to universities in negotiating these site licenses because they supply significantly fewer readers; this makes it that much harder for them to afford this type of journal access.

The number of open access science journals is still relatively small, but growing at a rate of about 15 percent per year. This far surpasses the 3.5 percent growth rate of subscription journals. Open access journals may eventually supplant the current standard paid subscription journal model. A consortium of three top science-funding organizations has plans to launch an open access journal. Even the Nature Publishing Group has proposed adding an open access journal, Scientific Reports (SR), to its repertoire of other publications. Journals differ, however, in how they allow use of their content. As Sandy Thatcher, one of the founders of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) pointed out, “SR is using a creative commons license that permits only non-commercial reuse of their content, whereas PLoS and BMC impose no such restriction. This, rather ironically, means that neither PLoS nor BMC can reuse content published in SR. This should be a big non-starter for anyone who really cares about open access”.

So what’s the biggest challenge to putting together my vision of iPubSci? Getting the publishers to sign up and make their content available. Disassembling what is essentially a giant, highly profitable cartel run by a small number of companies is not a trivial undertaking. However, this task … Next Page »

Stewart Lyman is Owner and Manager of Lyman BioPharma Consulting LLC in Seattle. He provides strategic advice to clients on their research programs, collaboration management issues, as well as preclinical data reviews. Follow @

Single Page Currently on Page: 1 2 3 previous page

By posting a comment, you agree to our terms and conditions.

  • Jan W. Schoones

    iPubSci is not really needed – most people who need access have access, either through a subscription, license, or a library (which is a kind of an iPubSci if you look at its document delivery services).

  • Pingback: Bye-bye Berwick (Morning Read) | Health

  • Riccardo Caruso

    I agree with Stewart that we are rapidly moving toward free access to information and that the scientific community (especially the portion with less means) would benefit from it. However, rather than a low cost model, I would rather encourage an open source type of platform with exceptional search features and free access to content. Relevance of the publishing platform and authority (of authors) would need to be made safe and regulated to ensure the interest of the scientific community and the willingness of authors and moderators to redirect their free efforts toward such a model.

  • Luminar Prime

    With the entertainment industry, an important factor in convincing publishers to adopt the iTunes distribution format was the presence of illicit “pirate” competition. It became painfully obvious that the current practice of bundling several products into an “album” was driving customers to the black market. For example, I had to buy a two-disc set in the early 2000′s just to get the Outkast song “Hey Ya,” and was deeply disappointed by all the other tracks on the disks. Now that I can buy songs absentmindedly on iTunes, I spend about ten times more on music now than I did previously.

    Also, Apple can already distribute magazines via iTunes, so they’d probably be able to convince publishers to jump on board with their already successful e-distribution infrastructure. Amazon would be happy to do this as well.

    Know what would be really awesome? Making it so customers can buy the cited and citing articles while reading the purchased one. I would quickly go broke with that.

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com Richard Gayle

    A couple of points. I’m wondering if you might be looking for a solution to a problem that may already be taking care of itself. I think this is an important discussion to have – access to research papers. I’m just not yet convinced that it will be needed if market forces are allowed to play out.

    First, if one is a student at UW – and even a 1 credit student counts – one has free access to the UW journal list. Mark Minie teaches just such a class at the UW extension. This could give a biotech company access right now to a huge number of journals for a nominal price. No need for iPubSci for that.

    Secondly, market forces may take care of the ‘problem.’

    For profit journals survive because of scarcity. In the old days, with only so many pages that could be published, they could maintain a large stock of great papers that require large prices for access. But in a digital age, many journals – particularly highly regarded ones published by learned societies – no longer suffer from this disadvantage. This reduces the number of worthwhile articles that are available for commercial publications to gather.

    In addition, the authors of papers want as many people to see their work as possible. I would expect that many would welcome the chance to get their paper in a highly regarded society journal that now has extra pages to fill. And they will push that society – as members – to open up access. If I publish in PNAS, I can publish as an Open Access article or as a normal one – but everyone gets to read the article after 6 months. And even in those 6 months, the cost is pretty nominal. That is better than having it embargoed forever at a high price.

    Finally, the Open Access model scales much better than the subscription model. Let’s say a journal wants to increase the number of pages it publishes a month. In the current model, it has to publish the pages and hope it can increase subscription numbers to pay for it. In a subscription model, it only gets paid AFTER it publishes. Few subscribe to a journal before it is published.

    But since the papers already pay for themselves BEFORE publication in the Open Access model, adding 100 pages really adds little cost to the bottom line. The publisher is essentially paid before publication.

    Taken together, I see that Open access approaches will drive down the access to articles, simply by market forces. In the interim, getting access by joining the journal club may work well. Heck, even simply emailing the authors is pretty cheap.

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com Richard Gayle

    Here is the link to the UW Journal Club

  • http://www.spreadingscience.com Richard Gayle

    Humm. Links used to work. And I can’t seem to edit.

    Oh. well. Google “Journal Research Seminar Course” and you will find it. At the UW Professional and Continuing Education site.

  • Lance Stewart

    This is a great idea. If I’m at Amazon, and want to take a run at Apple. This is the way to do it. Seattle should take the lead !

  • http://www.lymanbiopharma.com Stewart Lyman

    Thanks to all of you for your comments. Let me respond to some of the issues raised:

    Jan Schoones – I have heard from scientists (and their librarians) all over the US that affordable access to the scientific literature is a serious problem. There is a full page of links on the iPubSci Website that document problems with the affordability of the current journal system. One story that I heard from two separate people is of biotech companies that hired college students as “interns” for the primary purpose of using their access to their campus libraries to download articles for the company scientists. One can understand why some companies have taken this “Robin Hood” approach, but I doubt this is legal. I would love to hear how the small and middle size biotech companies in your area have achieved affordable access to the scientific literature; please share this info with Xconomy readers.

    Riccardo Caruso – The question I have for the open source model that you propose is how is it going to get paid for? What incentive would the publishers of for-profit journals have to add their articles (which represent about 2/3 of the articles in PubMed) to this database? While it may appear to be free to the end user, open access publishing still requires the authors to pay for their articles. My friends in academia tell me that the going rate per article is around $2000. With the current funding constraints on grants, this expense is a concern to many. No matter which model is chosen, there needs to be some way to pay for access to the scientific literature. I don’t think anyone questions the value of paying for Time magazine or Consumer Reports; there is nothing inherently wrong with paying for journals. They must be paid for in some way; the problem with the for-profit journals is that they are unaffordable to many. Who would pay $2500 a year for a subscription to Vogue or Forbes? The solution I came up with, iPubSci, meets three key criteria: easy to use, legal, and affordable.

    Luminar Prime – Apple is clearly in the prime spot to deliver on the promise of iPubSci. And you have seen one of the many benefits of such a system: the ability to easily buy articles within articles. One other feature that would be easy to build in: click on a Recommendation box, and every time you buy an article, you would get a message saying “Previous purchasers of this article looked at/downloaded the following related articles”. This would enhance the ability to keep track of papers you might have missed. Numerous other features found in iTunes could be incorporated into iPubSci to enhance the user experience.

    Richard Gayle – Mark Minie has done a marvelous job of getting access to the U. Washington journal collection for those who join his journal club. His efforts meet the criteria of being legal and affordable. However, I would not characterize the system in place as easy to use. I believe less than 10 people have signed up for this, and there is a limit of how many people can join. This may simply reflect issues with failure to publicize the approach properly, and Mark has indicated that the potential is there to scale this up in the future. However, I am not sure that everyone would be interested in participating in a journal club format in order to gain access to the library collection. I also doubt that the UW is interested in providing access to biotech scientists in San Diego, Research Triangle Park, or Tuscaloosa; this wouldn’t help the scientists in other areas. There is also the hassle of signing up for the program with the university. Anyone can download iTunes, set up a personal account, and be buying music or movies in under 15 minutes. iPubSci could do the same thing.

    While open access journals are growing at a faster rate than for-profit journals, they still represent a tiny share of the market. I’m not sure how long you are willing to wait until open access becomes the standard, but in the meantime (and I think this will take at least a decade, if not several) there are a lot of scientists who will be missing access to the literature. As for the scarcity issue, I don’t see that journals like Nature and Cell are unable to compete for quality articles that still need to be paid for. What would be the solution to lower the cost of legacy articles, like the ones you and I published 15 years ago and for which the publishers still want $30-$35/each? Finally, emailing the authors for pdf reprints is, as you point out, a very handy way to get articles; I use it all the time. I would love to have someone familiar with copyright law weigh in on this subject and let us know if this is actually legal. iPubSci handles each of these issues and could be adapted in a relatively short time. I think it would be widely used.

    Lance Stewart – Amazon is indeed another company that could take on the challenge of building iPubSci. They certainly have a strong interest/background in publishing and distribution issues. Only they can determine if such a project would be too far away from their core business to make it worth pursuing. It would be great to keep this in Seattle!

  • Jeff Sfakianos

    Great Article! Change must come.

    Some of the comments are absolutely right. Libraries and Companies provide these articles to their employees for “free”. Yet, try starting a company on your own. You’ll suddenly realize how much it costs to stay current in your research of science.

    Couldn’t the publishing companies turn this into a profit? Why couldn’t they increase the ad efficacy by allowing iPubSci to track users’ readings and then tag the pdf’s with directed ads? I have never purchased products because of an ad in Science, Nature, or Cell. If I downloaded several articles on next-gen sequencing, then it might be obvious that I would seriously consider an ad tossed onto my next pdf download by 424 and/or their competitors.

    I hope this takes off Stewart!

  • http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com Heather Morrison

    Rather than ipubget, I would suggest that you join the movement for full open access to scholarly works. There are now more than 7,000 fully open access peer-reviewed scholarly journals listed in the Directory of Open Acccess Journals http://www.doaj.org (growing by 4 titles per day), and over 30 million items can be retrieved through a search of the Bielefeld Academic Search Engine http://base.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/en/ (growing by millions of articles each quarter). About 20% of the world’s medical literature is now freely available from PubMed within 2 years of publication, and the number of journals contributing all articles immediately on publication is growing rapidly. Usage-based pricing like ipubget is in my opinion a particularly bad model for scholarship, as I discuss in depth in this book chapter http://summit.sfu.ca/item/439

  • http://www.lymanbiopharma.com Stewart Lyman

    Thanks for your input Heather. I did suggest in putting forth the idea of iPubSci that scientists should indeed publish their articles in open access journals. And I agree that there is a lot of material available at the sources you cite. I have been hearing a similar response to yours from most people in the open access movement. Unfortunately, your suggestion provides no solution for scientists who want and need affordable access NOW to the millions and millions of articles that the for-profit publishers have locked away in their archives, and for which they are currently charging $30-35 per article. Should they wait the decade or two until open access has taken over to get their hands on these articles? I have asked this specific question of open access supporters: how do we solve this problem of a lack of access to legacy articles? The responses range from some vague plans to share what is available and deposit it somewhere that it would be accessible, to essentially some ill-defined idea of stealing these papers and giving them away. It is the Robin Hood approach, but without a clear plan, and as Antoine de Saint Exupery nicely put it “A goal without a plan is just a wish”. I get it that many people despise, hate, and loathe the for-profit publishers for their excessive journal costs and fees. The iPubSci pricing structure drops the average fee charges per paper by 99%, yet many in the open source community say they would not, in principle, support paying even a penny to buy an article. I am on board with any solution that solves the central problem that I have outlined above, which I think iPubSci could do in a very simple fashion. I am still waiting for open access supporters to provide some real world solution that can provide biotechnology scientists affordable access to the literature today, so that they can develop the medicines of tomorrow.

  • Mario1z

    I’ve got an idea, which would solve everything. How about a law. Scientific and medical literature funded by taxpayer research must be disseminated (for nearly no cost…which it is) electronically for free…period. The cost of electronic publishing is an extremely small percentage of the cost of the research (million dollar grant, $10000 projected publishing cost ($2000 actual cost with all the free reviews and editing)= 0.2-1%). Legacy scientific over 10 years old is free, period. Medical literature (any) is free…period and must be funded by taxpayers (a small cost compared the cost of the medical establishement now, and would improve medical care greatly). If the publishers don’t like it, get out of the scientific publishing business and leave our scientific knowledge and legacy alone, and go sell Ann Rice novels and Madonna albums for your greedy profit. We’d be better off without them in the long run.