---

Scientific Publications: Free for all?

: Of course I recognise the discrepancy between the two modes of publishing and the VAT levied on each. That is an unassailable fact. I know that some will argue that some publishers are making too much profit at the expense of the taxpayer. Normal profits are necessary to lead to a healthy level of investment, for example in new technology and value-added services. Journal pricing should reflect the costs of ongoing capital investment, production—including peer review—editorial issues, marketing and administration, and the level of demand. If there is evidence that financially powerful scientific, technical and medical publishers are using their strength to increase prices or make excessive profits, that would be a matter for investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. In arriving at the position that I have outlined, I would like to emphasise the important part that cross-Government working has played. The Government did not arrive at this position alone and, as I have already stated, at every step of the way, the Office of Science and Technology collaborated with colleagues in business relations in the Department of Trade and Industry, Research Councils UK, the Higher Education Funding Council, the Department for Education and Skills, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for International Development to provide a response to the Select Committee report. There was constant consultation, discussion and all views were taken into account. Government officials have met a wide range of stakeholders to develop our thinking about the Government response and policy. Hon. Members will no doubt be aware of the particular criticism levelled by the Committee last year that the OST exerted undue pressure on the Joint Information Systems Committee to seek to neutralise its views. I would like to take this opportunity to repeat that that was not the case. OST worked closely with both JISC and RCUK. The Government have been extremely proactive in the scientific communications area. We have been continually reviewing our policy based on the limited evidence that is available, and Ministers and officials have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders, including those at European level. In describing the Government's view, I hope that I have made it clear that the Government do not favour one part of the value chain over another. We have in our sights the long-term interests of a sustainable UK publications market. We are happy to speak to all elements of the community, whether they be publishers, funding bodies or academics, to promote an understanding of each other's needs. Hon. Members will be familiar with RCUK's position. However, I will recap the main features because our perceived attitude to that matter has attracted much attention and created some misunderstanding and because the issue is germane to the debate. The position is based on four principles. First, ideas and knowledge derived from publicly-funded research must be made available and accessible for public use, interrogation and scrutiny, as widely, rapidly and effectively as practicable. Secondly, effective mechanisms must be in place to ensure that published research outputs are subject to rigorous quality assurance through peer review. Thirdly, the models and mechanisms for publication and access to research results must be both efficient and cost effective in the use of public funds. Lastly, the outputs from current and future research must be preserved and remain accessible not only for the next few years, but for future generations. RCUK developed its position statement in consultation with stakeholders and submitted it to the Government. RCUK was encouraged to disseminate information widely and received many constructive comments. A further consultation exercise was undertaken, which closed at the end of August. RCUK is working closely with all interested parties to examine all concerns and endeavour to clarify and refine its position. When the Government responded to the Select Committee report, we said that we would take into account any points raised in the EU study. The Government await with interest the publication of that paper, and officials are in contact with the Commission. The DTI will continue to promote dialogue on this important matter at a European level. In conclusion, the issue of open access requires much more debate. The DTI is encouraging that debate by facilitating the work of the research communications forum, where funding bodies, libraries and the publishing industry can meet regularly to exchange views and develop a better understanding of one another's needs and views.