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