Science is an awesome thing! The whole process begins with a simple hypothesis (a prediction). Researchers will then design an experiment to test their hypothesis, often using some extremely clever techniques and manipulations. It is in most cases a long, slow (and let’s not forget, fun!) process. After some years, what the researcher really hopes for is a publication. They will write up their results into a journal format, have it reviewed by others in their field, and submit it to a bunch of publishers in hope of seeing their research in print.
Currently, there is a spark of controversy in the academic world surrounding the ethics of these publication companies. It is important we all – scientists and non-scientists alike – appreciate the issue. You see, there are two different “types” of publishing companies – “open access publishers” and “paywall publishers”. Let’s briefly look at two leading companies from each camp. The first, Public Library of Science (PLoS), offers all of its research for free and aims to speed up research communication. Researchers must pay a relatively high cost to have their work published in PLoS – because after all, they’re a non-profit organisation. The second company, Elsevier (part of the larger Reed Elsevier group), charges money for access to their publications, but are generally considered (at least presently) to contain a higher quality of research.
Hmm okay, so Elsevier charges money for access to their journals, so what? Obviously we wouldn’t want an unstable company to handle such important information, profit must be good, right? But wait a minute … in 2010, Elsevier reported a profit of 36% on revenues of US$3.2 billion. Hmm, that seems unreasonably high considering their profit comes off the back of others’ work. How could they make so much money, you ask? It comes down to ruthless business strategy. Price hiking is one thing, but then selling these journals in more expensive journal “bundles” is ludicrous. Let’s not forget a lot of the research is funded by government bodies! Although Elsevier recently withdrew its support for the Research Works Act (which would have prohibited open-access mandates), they have made it clear they will still oppose any legislation which acts to extend mandates for open-access publications.
Science should be a feed-forward, divergent process, not held in a vice-grip by a bunch of greedy businessman. Have your say at
www.thecostofknowledge.com or email me for any further questions at
geekology_QandA@live.com.
Geekology | Issue 9
