From: FrederickFriend <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 09:22:40 +0000

Alicia has been very frank in her explanation of Elsevier's position
vis-a-vis NIH and we should thank her for that. However, once you set
the Elsevier/NIH situation into the larger environment of scholarly
communication, the picture we see looks very different from that
painted by Alicia. Firstly, the "modest reduction of usage (by
subscribers) and transactional sales (for non-subscribers)" has to be
set against the fact that the bulk of Elsevier's income and very high
profits (from licensing to libraries) has been unaffected by the NIH
mandate. The "modest reduction" could be seen as no more than a small
sign of the operation of normal market economy competition in what is
a very uncompetitive (for purchasers) market. Elsevier can afford to
take much more competition before its profits reduce to a more normal
level.

Secondly, on the charge that PMC is "using taxpayer funds to duplicate
publishing efforts and depriving publishers of revenue for their
investments", the investment that publishers make is very small by
comparison to the investment made by taxpayers and the academic
community. In the bigger picture taxpayers are paying for the research
on which publishers build their business, and the value publishers add
- primarily in editing and in quality control - itself contains a
substantial contribution in time and money from peer reviewers and
their institutions. The "modest reduction" being experienced by
Elsevier could - in the bigger picture - be seen as no more than a
recognition by Elsevier that their publishing efforts are very
dependent upon this contribution unfunded by their shareholders.

We now have a much clearer picture of the overall costs and benefits
of scholarly communication through journal publishing. New
technologies and new business models are opening up new possibilities
for a better return upon taxpayers' investment. The private sector has
an important role in these developments and I welcome Alicia's
assurance that Elsevier "want to work closely with NIH colleagues to
shape a shared way forward". What concerns me about Elsevier's
approach to new models such as gold open access is that the company
shows no sign of reducing their dependence upon the old model of
licensing to libraries in order to switch to new models.
Publicly-funded institutions cannot afford to pay twice for
toll-access and for open access.

Fred Friend
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL

-----Original Message----- From: LIBLICENSE
Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 11:41 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Elsevier, PMA, and RWA

From: "Wise, Alicia (ELS-OXF)" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 11:51:55 +0000

Hello all,

I am very happy to explain further how it is possible for Elsevier to
be both positive about PubMed Central and the Research Works Act.

Elsevier participated in the voluntary NIH posting policy before the
NIH mandate was enacted.  We continue to post on behalf of our
authors, despite increasing concern over the uniform 12 month embargo
period and a principled objection to government-imposed mandates.
What the Research Works Act would do is end the mandate that requires
the free posting of content that has been invested in and improved
upon by publishers, unless they agree to that posting. The Research
Works Act would not end our desire to work in partnership with NIH,
but would give us all more flexibility to negotiate sustainable
models.

We have specific concerns about the NIH mandate which at best is
overly rigid/onerous, and at worst actually damaging. Early
indications show the NIH Public Access Policy has had a negative
impact on Elsevier and other publishers.  We have experienced a modest
reduction of usage (by subscribers) and transactional sales (for non
subscribers) for articles on our publishing platform after they are
placed on PubMed Central even with links to the published journal
article.  The NIH policy has only been in effect a few years and so
these early warning signs are important:  they indicate usage and
revenue loss could increase over time as the content duplicated in PMC
increases.   This early evidence also suggests that PMC is providing
access to users already served by the publishing system - essentially
using tax payer funds to duplicate publisher efforts, and depriving
publishers of revenue for their investments.  The current NIH public
access policy therefore seems neither efficient nor sustainable.

So if the RWA were enacted how might Elsevier work with PubMed
Central?   Well, we would of course want to work closely with NIH
colleagues to shape a shared way forward.  Elsevier already works
successfully with an array of other funding bodies (for an overview of
these agreements see www.elsevier.com/fundingbodies) on sustainable
solutions.  The models can include gold open access publishing,
whereby publication is funded by an article processing charge paid by
the author or another sponsor such as a funding body.  Gold open
access provides one approach toward our shared goal of expanding
access to peer-reviewed scientific works and maximizing the value and
reuse of the results of scientific research.  Another option is green
open access where manuscripts are made publicly available via
repositories after a title-specific embargo period.  With some
funders, for example the Wellcome Trust, we have successfully blended
these models and in exchange for a gold open access publishing fee we
also deposit a sponsored version of the article into UK PubMed
Central.  We feel the Wellcome Trust model is a good one, and
represents a win for author, funder, publisher, university, and
science more broadly.

Elsevier hopes the Research Works Act will stimulate reflection about
the appropriate role for US government agencies in expanding access.
We believe that the current mandate is unnecessary and that there are
better ways to provide access including to taxpayers.  As a company,
we want to continue to work in partnership with NIH and others to
achieve our vision for universal access to information. For us, RWA is
an important bill because it reminds people that collaboration and
partnership rather than government mandates can be powerful ways to
widen access to scientific information.

With kind wishes,

Alicia

Dr Alicia Wise
Director of Universal Access
Elsevier I The Boulevard I Langford Lane I Kidlington I Oxford I OX5 1GB
E: [log in to unmask]

-----Original Message-----
From: LibLicense-L Discussion Forum
Subject: Re: Elsevier Foundation Awards 2011 Grants
From: David Prosser <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2012 00:06:19 +0000

I'm not sure I see how supporting a bill that would stop the NIH
mandate to deposit papers in PubMed Central (or any similar
repository) can be classed as anything other than anti-PubMed Central.

Could Alicia explain the apparent contradiction?

David