---

Scientific Publications: Free for all?

: I do not want to dodge the issue, but that is a very interesting question. There is an argument for the issue to be inquired into. I recognise—I think that the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East made this point—that there is a cost to peer review and clearly, the more filleting that has to be done because journals of high reputation attract many submissions, the higher those costs will be. The point that I made earlier was that, in order not to transfer the cost, in an author pays model, on to the good researchers or the best researchers, who pass peer review, journals that publish only 5 per cent. of papers received ensure that the submission fee covers the cost only of peer review. Clearly, not all journals may wish to do that, but that is what a market involves. Some will say, ““We will have a submission cost.”” People take a gamble, but at least that means that people who are successful in getting through will not pay the costs relating to all the people who speculatively submit. I think that a submission fee is a good thing, but some journals may not want to have one in order to have that as their selling point. That is what markets do, and scientists and authors are capable of making such choices. I am in favour of choice, even in that way, in marketplaces. Something needs to be said about the position of learned societies, because they have expressed concerns. I am aware of concerns expressed not only by the Royal Society—which has an axe to grind, not unreasonably, in respect of the journal that it produces, in effect, as a learned society—but by the Royal Society of Chemistry and others. They are concerned that a system of publishing in institutional repositories at the time when or shortly after an article is published in their journal might mean that their subscription income drops, and they rely on that income and the surplus that they get from it to do all the other good things that they do, which are so important. It is right that regard should be paid to those concerns. I believe that in a mature market, learned societies can run successful author pays systems of publishing. That means that they will have the same ability to generate surpluses that they presently have for their other activities. That is why I have concerns, which I have expressed before, about a headlong rush into the use of institutional repositories. That represents neither the straightforward publishing model that we have now, nor the full-blooded author pays access that provides an income stream for publishers, but from a different source. We must be careful not to choose one or the other. The journals that are most vulnerable to a small drop in subscriptions will be those most liable to fold, perhaps because some people will wait to find them in a repository, especially if those facilities are linked together to make them easily accessible. It is likely that the large publishers will be able to cope with that in a way that small publishers would not. I am sensitive to that matter, which is why I question whether the report has got the balance right. We must be very careful that we do not choose an option for full access if that means that no one is getting funding, no one is getting an income stream and no one is able to generate surplus. The importance of publishing negative results has already been mentioned. That is particularly the case in the health care sector. However we deal with the question of which model to choose, we must have a publishing system that enables negative results to be published. That especially applies to clinical trials through which individuals—patients and healthy controls—have put themselves as a favour to society. Otherwise, we shall suffer from a publication bias that makes it difficult to know what the evidence base really is. We must find a way to do that, perhaps through rules that stipulate that trials must be published even if they are negative and not very interesting. Much has been said about the developing world. The question is whether a change to an author pays system will disadvantage the developing world. As the hon. Member for Wantage said, that sector benefits from schemes organised by commercial publishers and others that are publicly funded from free or subsidised access to research findings. That is not a question of whether it is an author pays model or not. If there are to be subsidies and support for researchers and readers in the developing world, it does not necessarily matter which model is in place. Whatever the model, we must ensure support for information technology in the developing world. There must also be sufficient bandwidth for research findings to be accessed. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, another report of the Select Committee dealt with that matter. In summary, this was a very important report. The Government must address any doubt as to whether they are playing with a straight bat on this matter. The Government have said that research councils—and, therefore, RCUK—are independent of policy, even if they are in receipt of Government funding. There is concern that, because of the commercial interests of the DTI, which has a role in promoting commerce, the Government have influenced RCUK in an effort to persuade it to reconsider or delay publications. An assurance from the Minister that that has not been the case would be extremely helpful. The Minister will be aware that, under freedom of information, it was revealed that, since February 2004, Lord Sainsbury has twice met and had one telephone call with Sir Crispin Davis, the chief executive of Reed Elsevier. The Minister has also once met the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers and has once met Harold Varmus, the leading advocate of open access. There is concern that there should be a level playing field on which people are free to lobby. People on one side of the debate have lobbied much more successfully than have people on the other, and it would be helpful if the Government reassured us that they believe there is a need for a level playing field and that they are speaking not only for those on one side of the debate but for those on the other. A level playing field will require the Government to commission research in the way that has been described. I argue, however, that we must proceed with care so that we do not undermine the viability of one publishing model, or the viability of both models if they can live together, as I believe they can, by rushing to have institutional repository publishing without sorting out a system of kite marking and without reassuring people that it will be clear that material has been peer reviewed. We do need to proceed with caution. The inquiry and the report were both excellent, and it was right that the Select Committee took the unusual step of drawing attention to the Government's inadequate response to the main thrust of its report.