Journal Editors and Managers: for a limited time, Open Access Press will host your digital journal on the Open Journal Systems platform FREE for the first year, with a three year agreement. Normal pricing of $700 U.S. applies for years two and three. We launched this effort to help you make the transition to Open Access! Contact us so we can help you get started!

Another University press has buckled under the weight of changing economics in the academic publishing game, and reduced budgets at many American universities. The East Tennessee University press will lay-off its remaining 11 employees as of August 31, according to Knoxnews.com. The full story is available at the Knox News site.

This story was reported in the British press a couple weeks ago, but in my mind hasn’t gotten quite enough play. What you have here is a multi-national, multi-billion dollar company producing six publications it passed off to the scientific and medical community as independent, peer-reviewed medical journals, when in fact, they were nothing more than advertorials for drugs produced by Merck. From the Guardian UK story:

The relationship between big pharma and publishers is perilous. Any industry with global revenues of $600bn can afford to buy quite a lot of adverts, and pharmaceutical companies also buy glossy expensive “reprints” of the trials it feels flattered by. As we noted in this column two months ago, there is evidence that all this money distorts editorial decisions.

This time Elsevier Australia went the whole hog, giving Merck an entire publication which resembled an academic journal, although in fact it only contained reprinted articles, or summaries, of other articles. In issue 2, for example, nine of the 29 articles concerned Vioxx, and a dozen of the remainder were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions. Some were bizarre: such as a review article containing just two references.

In a statement to The Scientist magazine, Elsevier at first said the company “does not today consider a compilation of reprinted articles a ‘journal’”. I would like to expand on this ­statement: It was a collection of academic journal articles, published by the academic journal publisher Elsevier, in an academic ­journal-shaped package. Perhaps if it wasn’t an academic journal they could have made this clearer in the title which, I should have mentioned, was named: The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine.

Things have deteriorated since. It turns out that Elsevier put out six such journals, sponsored by industry. The Elsevier chief executive, Michael Hansen, has now admitted that they were made to look like journals, and lacked proper disclosure. “This was an unacceptable practice and we regret that it took place,” he said.

As Open Access publications have taken the research world by storm, organizations such as the American Association of Publishers have openly assailed such provisions as the NIH policy mandating public access to NIH funded research under the guise that research free from copyright would somehow be dangerous to the scientific community. If I were running the AAP today, I’d be finding a way to ride the Open Access wave, especially if I had to choose between the despicable practice Elsevier engaged in vis-a-vis revolutionary providers such as PLOS and others that are trying to expand access to credible scientific research.

The Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition announced today that the appropriations act just passed contains a provision making the NIH Open Access policy permanent. From the release:

President Obama yesterday signed into law the 2009 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which includes a provision making the National Institutes’ of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy permanent. The NIH Revised Policy on Enhancing Public Access requires eligible NIH-funded researchers to deposit electronic copies of their peer-reviewed manuscripts into the National Library of Medicine’s online archive, PubMed Central (PMC). Full texts of the articles are made publicly available and searchable online in PMC no later than 12 months after publication in a journal.

The NIH policy was previously implemented with a provision that was subject to annual renewal. Since the implementation of the revised policy the percentage of eligible manuscripts deposited into PMC has increased significantly, with over 3,000 new manuscripts being deposited each month. The PubMed Central database is a part of a valuable set of public database resources at the NIH, which are accessed by more than 2 million users each day.

The new provision reads in full:

The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require in the current fiscal year and thereafter that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.

“This is a significant moment for all of us in the health community, and for efforts in health reform. With free access to health research, individuals are empowered with the knowledge necessary to understand the health threats they and their families face,” said Sharon Terry, President and CEO of Genetic Alliance. “Congress recognizes the incredible power of technology and innovation in enabling new solutions for the proactive management of health, consumer-driven healthcare, and novel partnerships and collaborations in research. Congratulations to us all.”

The NIH Public Access Policy addresses the public’s growing need for high-quality health information and promotes accelerated scientific advancement in the biomedical sciences.

“Public access to publicly funded research contributes directly to the mission of higher education,” said David Shulenburger, Vice President for Academic Affairs at NASULGC (the National Association of State Universities and Land-Grant Colleges). “Improved access will enable universities to maximize their own investment in research, and widen the potential for discovery as the results are more readily available for others to build upon.”

Heather Joseph, spokesperson for the Alliance for Taxpayer Access noted, “Thanks to the work of a wide coalition of patients, libraries, researchers, publishers, students, and taxpayers, the results of NIH-funded research can be accessed – and used – in ways never before possible. The successful implementation of this policy will unlock the potential of this research to benefit the public as a whole. ”

For more information, and a timeline detailing the evolution of the NIH Public Access Policy beginning May 2004, visit the ATA Web site at http://www.taxpayeraccess.org.

There is a lot of talk about Article Processing Charges (APC) and Open Access, and it just has never seemed to me that that is a sustainable business model. The issue comes up yet again in the RIN Report “Paying for Open Access Publication Charges.” Surprisingly enough the word “sustainability” is not used though the conclusions in this report center around the likely increased competition for funds as Open Access grows, and funds to pay APC’s centralize in libraries.

Philip Davis from Scholarly Kitchen notes:

[M]any library administrators are pushing for these author funds, and in many cases, the monies are simply being skimmed off existing library collection funds or were provided as a one-time gift from a Vice Chancellor before the economy took a nosedive. As the RIN report states on page 23, there is clearly not enough money to support both author-pays and subscription-pays models.

APC’s work for now in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Medicine) fields, and ostensibly a pool would allow humanities and social science scholars the use of funds to pay APC’s if there were Open Access journals operating on that business model. But why move from one unsustainable model – the current print publication/learned society/university press model – to another?

The National Endowment for the Humanities Office of Digital Humanities recently sent out a clarification regarding a couple of different programs that humanities scholars can use to digitaize scholarship, among other things. From the post:

The NEH’s Division of Preservation and Access has recently released the guidelines for the program “Humanities Collections and Reference Resources.” This program supports projects that preserve and create intellectual access to such collections as books, journals, newspapers, manuscript and archival materials, maps, still and moving images, sound recordings, art, and objects of material culture. The grant can cover activities such as digitizing materials, cataloging collections, implementing preservation measures, developing databases, and many others. Please consult the guidelines for more details. The deadline for this program is July 15, 2009.

Please note that “Humanities Collections and Reference Resources” is a separate program from “Research and Development.” The R&D program has a deadline of July 30, 2009 and you can read more about it in this earlier ODH Update post.

Consulting guru Scott Ginsburg often comes up with compelling lists of how to do things right or wrong, and his list on how to make loyalty vanish made me think of traditional publishers, and their disconnection with their customers, and the tool (Google) their customers use to find information. See if any of these from Scott’s full list, ring a bell:

• Completely ignore the self-interest of everyone but yourself.

• Demonstrate complete and utter unwillingness to understand how other people experience you.

• Exude a constant sense of scarcity by creating a monopoly on information.

• Refuse to acknowledge, listen to or implement the ideas of ANYONE born after 1980.

• When people tell you their problems, reflexively respond with the following five-word lie: “I understand how you feel.”

The beauty of Open Access from our perspective anyway is that Open Access exists exclusively to connect people to information – on their terms – not someone else’s.

The NPR storyline reads:

Publicly funded research doesn’t seem so public when the public has to pay to read the results in a journal. A proposed law would help publishing companies preserve their business models, but it would limit public access to the research.

You can read the full transcript of Janet Babin’s piece on NPR or listen to it at the NPR website as well.

Knowing that some of President Obama’s appointments to the Justice Department are anything but friendly to the open web, and seeing how a member of his party John Conyers, has relentlessly supported traditional publishers over Open Access publishers, I was very concerned when I first read this. Fred Benneson at Creative Commons does a great job explaining why the White House selected a Creative Commons license for photograph’s it released on Flickr:

The microblogs have been a-buzz this morning about news of the launch of the official White House Flickr stream featuring photos from Obama’s first 100 days in office. While the photos are licensed under our Attribution license, one could make the very strong argument that they’re actually in the public domain and can be used without attribution (though one would have to be careful and respect the personality rights of the private citizens featured in some of the photos). The photos are likely in the public domain because they are works created by the federal government and not entitled to copyright protection. As you might recall, the Whitehouse.gov’s copyright notice indicates as much.

Why would the White House then choose Attribution for their Flickr stream? Simple, unlike communities like Wikipedia and Thingiverse, Flickr doesn’t allow their photographers to choose Public Domain as an option to release their work to the world. So the Obama team must have picked the next best option: Attribution only.