Disruption in research publishing – the open access revolution

During the tenure of the current Editorial Executive of JCF (six years) the publishing world has undergone, and continues to undergo, major disruption. Here we highlight changes that will impact on the publishing of cystic fibrosis (CF) basic and clinical science for the foreseeable future, with a focus on the open access (OA) debate and hope this will stimulate discussion within the CF community across a range of topics that challenge current publication and editorial processes. Over three decades, there has been tremendous growth in the number of journals publishing research as well as a marked increase in the volume of research papers. Yet ∼80% of scholarly publishing is undertaken by only a handful of publishers, most of which have utilised (until very recently) subscription-access business models, with most subscriptions being paid by academic organisations (e.g. universities and research institutes) [[1]Monitoring the transition to open access –December 2017. https://www.universitiesuk.ac.uk/policy-and-analysis/reports/Documents/2017/monitoring-transition-open-access-2017.pdf(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. The rising financial burden of subscription rates has placed increasing pressure on academic library budgets [[2]Barbour V. The future of academic publishing: disruption, opportunity and a new ecosystem.Med J. Aust. 2019; 211: 151-152Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. In Australia, where 2.2% of the worlds’ research publications are generated, the estimated combined subscription costs for universities was $AUD271 million in 2017 alone [2Barbour V. The future of academic publishing: disruption, opportunity and a new ecosystem.Med J. Aust. 2019; 211: 151-152Crossref PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar, 3Parliament of Australia. Australian Government funding arrangements for non-NHMRC research. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, 2018. https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House/Employment_Education_and_Training/FundingResearch/Report (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. Rising costs have led many universities to pursue other options including “negotiating hard” during contract renewals, limiting the suite of journals included in the bundle of journals that the “subscriber” can access, and in some cases opting out of subscriptions. The most notable case has been the University of California's cancellation of all subscriptions with Elsevier, the largest global publisher (and the publisher of JCF) [[4]Open Statement: Why UC terminated journal negotiations with Elsevier. https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/2019/03/open-statement-why-uc-terminated-journal-negotiations-with-elsevier/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. At the time of writing, negotiation between Elsevier and the University of California is ongoing [[5]UC and Elsevier: Overview (update as of July 10, 2019). https://osc.universityofcalifornia.edu/open-access-at-uc/publisher-negotiations/uc-and-elsevier/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. The subscription-based business model of publishing was established many decades ago, at a time when all journals were in print and could be read “hot off the press” when they arrived at the academic library by post; these were then carefully collated, assembled, and retained on endless shelves in the library (or its offsite storage facility). The first wave of disruption arrived with the internet which enabled online access to the latest (as well as more mature published research) findings of interest via library subscription and are mostly behind publishing “paywalls”. The next major disruption was the move to establish online-only OA journals built upon the principle that access was available immediately to all readers. This business model was supported by charging the authors article processing fees (APC), which would cover the costs of managing the publishing process (including peer review) and the curation of papers to online access. The various OA options, their benefits and limitations, as well as the adverse consequences of OA models, have been reviewed extensively [[6]Tennant JP, Waldner F, Jacques DC, Masuzzo P, Collister LB, Hartgerink CH. The academic, economic and societal impacts of openaccess: an evidence-based review. F1000Res. 2016; 5: 632.Google Scholar]. The OA model has been associated with the growth of mega-journals that publish not merely hundreds but many thousands of papers annually (e.g. PLoS One). Hybrid journals, which have largely morphed from the traditional pure subscription-model journal, constitute a mixed model. Hybrid journals allow both access to publications via the traditional paywall/subscription as well as supporting OA for papers at the time of its publication. There are also journals that allow OA after the initial date of publication (e.g. six months (NEJM) to two years (JCF)); during this period of embargo, access to the articles comes with a price to those without a subscription. This has been called “double-dipping” for the publishing of research outputs by some commentators [[7]Pinfield S Salterj Bath PA The “total cost of publication” in a hybrid open‐access environment: Institutional approaches to funding journal article‐processing charges in combination with subscriptions.J Assn Inf Sci Tec. 2016; 67: 1751-1766Crossref Scopus (83) Google Scholar]. As many funding bodies mandate immediate OA of the eventual research output as a prerequisite for applying for research grants, this approach has supported these policies. In parallel with the growth of OA publishing platforms, there are growing calls for immediate access to all published research, in order to expedite knowledge translation (future research is built upon the back of existing knowledge) and delivering new evidence into practice. Immediate access also supports data transparency and perhaps prevents wastage of precious research budgets. It has been suggested that it is the “right of citizens” to be able to access publications from publicly-funded research [[8]‘Plan S’ and ‘cOAlition S’ – Accelerating the transition to full and immediate Open Access to scientific publications. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/commissioners/2014-2019/moedas/announcements/plan-s-and-coalition-s-accelerating-transition-full-and-immediate-open-access-scientific_en (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. There are several global initiatives that are leading the discussion for immediate OA for all published research, including these three key initiatives: To ensure research output data is Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable [9The FAIR Data Principles. https://www.force11.org/group/fairgroup/fairprinciples (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar, 10Guiding Principles for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable Data Publishing version b1.0. https://www.force11.org/fairprinciples(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar], the F.A.I.R. Principles provide guidance on the management of research-related data management and stewardship, and have been supported widely. The F.A.I.R. Principles aim to promote maximum use of research data and address data producers (the researchers) and data publishers (the publishers). In the future it is envisaged that academic libraries will use the F.A.I.R. Principles as a framework for encouraging and supporting the provision of research data services (a further disruption in the field) [[10]Guiding Principles for Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Re-usable Data Publishing version b1.0. https://www.force11.org/fairprinciples(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. Whilst the FAIR principles extend beyond the OA of publications (e.g. access to research data), they support that all publicly-funded research publications be made free to read immediately on publication. This could be sustained through a number of strategies including OA publishing through the publisher's website, or via institutional or approved public repositories. Importantly the principles also encourage incentives for researchers to provide their research OA and ensuring metadata associated with these outputs are retained and available (data transparency). OA2020 is a global initiative established in 2015 to accelerate OA publishing of scholarly outputs and was developed through the leadership of Science Europe and the European Research Council (ERC) Scientific Council [11Open Access 2020. https://oa2020.org/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar, 12Expression of interest in the large-scale implementation of open access to scholarlyjournals. https://oa2020.org/mission/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar, 13Joint Statement of OA2020 and cOAlition S: research performing and research funding organizations working together to accelerate the transition to open access. https://oa2020.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/joint-statement-oa2020-coalition-s.pdf(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. OA2020 calls for immediate and freely available OA for all published publicly-funded research. The European Commission (EC) now mandates that all projects funded by the ERC meet this goal and a similar approach has been undertaken by a growing number of funding organisations (e.g. Horizon 2020 funding [[14]Horizon 2020 online manual – Open access & Data management. https://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/cross-cutting-issues/open-access-dissemination_en.htm(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]). The OA2020 initiative also supports the conversion of existing publishing models from subscription fees to supporting researchers publishing OA, and encourages dialogue between all stakeholders (i.e. from funding through to publication). To date, 138 organisations from universities and research institutions to national funding bodies across the world have signed up to OA202012. A significant challenge to implementation of OA2020 principles is how to fund the APCs (averaging$USD3000 per article). In a White Paper published by the Max Planck Digital Library [[15]Schimmer R. Geschuhn KK, & Vogler A (2015). Disrupting the subscription journals’ business model for the necessary large-scale transformation to open access. 2015. http://hdl.handle.net/11858/00-001M-0000-0026-C274-7(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar], the authors argue there is sufficient resource within the current journal publishing landscape to support moving to OA approaches (i.e. move the money from subscriptions paid by libraries to the researchers to support the funding of APC), but the financial sustainability of this model has been debated by publishers and editors [16Gee CE Talley NJ. Disrupting medical publishing and the future of medical journals: a personal view.Med. J. Aust. 2019; 211: 167-168Crossref PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar, 17Haug CL. No Free Lunch — What Price Plan S for Scientific Publishing?.N Engl J Med. 2019; 380: 1181-1185Crossref PubMed Scopus (18) Google Scholar, 18The Lancet GroupPlan S: the final cut.Lancet. 2019; 393: 2276Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (5) Google Scholar]. The OA2020 initiative has a working group that is examining potential approaches for OA publishing by researchers from low-middle income countries (LMIC) [[19]Plan S – Making full and immediate Open Access a reality. https://www.coalition-s.org/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. In a closely-related initiative, cOAlition S was established in September 2018 [[20]ERC Scientific Council joins new effort to push for full open access. https://erc.europa.eu/news/erc-supports-full-open-access(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar] by a consortium of national research funding organisations. They launched an initiative to ensure the acceleration of full, immediate, and without embargo, OA for research publications (including OA repositories) both for publicly- and privately-funded research by national, regional and international research councils by 2020. The foundation signatories included the Welcome Trust, UK Research and Innovation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and are supported by the EC and ERC Organisations. Whilst there has been additional support for Plan S during the past year including from China's two largest research funding organisations and the World Health Organisation, this has not been universal [[21]The Plan S Principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/ (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. Funding organisations and government agencies from the US, Germany and Canada, amongst others are cautious and many are unlikely to change their current OA policies tied to grant awards (e.g. OA after a specific period such as 12 months [[22]Brainard J. To meet the ‘Plan S’ open-access mandate, journals mull setting papers free at publication. https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/05/meet-plan-s-open-access-mandate-journals-mull-setting-papers-free-publication(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]). Plan S calls for all research publications to be immediately and freely available and does not support publishing OA within hybrid journals [[21]The Plan S Principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/ (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. Importantly, JCF is an example of a hybrid journal. Plan S also calls for fair and reasonable APCs, a move to include monographs and book chapters and the monitoring of compliance by research funding bodies [[23]What is cOAlition S?https://www.coalition-s.org/about/(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. If implemented, Plan S will be the most significant disruption in the field of publishing to date. Many publishers and editors have been very concerned about the move away from subscription-based or hybrid models of publishing and the financial viability of the industry into the future. There are ongoing discussions across the industry and recently Plan S has been delayed until 2021 [[21]The Plan S Principles. https://www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/ (accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]. The role of Society journals such as JCF (and their societies such as European CF Society (ECFS)) in supporting OA has received less attention to date. ECFS established the journal 17 years ago to foster the dissemination of CF basic and clinical science. Full members of ECFS receive print and have online access to all published issues. In the future, the Society will need to discuss whether print versions are still appropriate and look carefully at the impact of OA. On one hand, the OA of all CF-related science will support LMIC access while on the other hand, authors from LMICs may still struggle to manage the costs of the APC. It is important to collect opinions and ideas not only inside the ECFS leadership, but also across its membership and the broader CF community. Meanwhile, authors in the CF community, should engaging closely with academic librarians and funding bodies about the best approach and ensure they are advocating for a financially sustainable solution for OA of published work. Researchers should also proactively seek grant funding to support the OA publication of research outputs from the funded work. OA also implies making scientific research results available to the non-specialist public. The technical jargon of scientific publications may limit the access by a general audience and could lead to potentially hazardous interpretation and extrapolation of scientific data. It is important for the patients and lay community to have facilitated access to primary research outcomes – adding context to support the strength and limitations of the publication as well as highlighting the next steps. A pioneering example is the online publication, CF Research News, which publishes lay summaries of all original articles and short communications from JCF (written by the authors and edited by the scientific and lay community [[24]CF Research News Archive. https://www.ecfs.eu/publications/cf-research-news(accessed 20th October 2019).Google Scholar]). There are many challenges associated with the OA debate including; the financial viability of publishers, options to support transition to immediate OA for all research outputs, and the future role of hybrid journals– let alone the traditional subscription-based journals (which include the highest profile journals such as NEJM). During this transition, collaboration across the industry is required to consider optimal funding models and reallocation of resources to support researchers to publish OA. The next decade promises a fascinating rollercoaster ride for the field of publishing and requires intensive discussions between publishers, academic institutions and the leadership of OA groups including cOAlition S and OA2020. So, the overall disruption has the potential to allow greater immediacy of access, but the devil is in the details of how to pay for it all. At time of rapid growth of OA-only scientific journals, additional focus on quality (of the published research), quality control (of the review process) and maintaining excellence in publishing (curating of the journal content) will be required. As a scientific community, the CF community, has an important role to play in advocating for ensuring the push to OA publishing is an enabler for fair, rapid and universal access to new evidence. The authors would like to highlight that this article is based on their own personal views and not that of the European CF Society nor the publisher of JCF, Elsevier. Thank you to Peter Bell for careful editing and stimulating the discussion.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.