0:00:19.150,0:00:21.550
This is The State of Things.[br]I'm Frank Stasio.
0:00:22.000,0:00:25.200
A lot of academic research was[br]paid for with public funding,
0:00:25.200,0:00:29.500
but public access is often[br]restricted by expensive paywalls.
0:00:29.500,0:00:32.000
Meanwhile, some academic[br]publishing companies have higher
0:00:32.119,0:00:35.020
profit margins than companies[br]like Walmart, Google, and Apple.
0:00:35.800,0:00:38.800
But there is a movement on the way[br]that could turn the tide.
0:00:44.550,0:00:46.390
Paywall[br]The Business of Scholarship
0:00:47.490,0:00:50.090
Universities are about educating humans,
0:00:50.400,0:00:56.900
and there is literally no reason[br]to keep information from people.
0:00:57.000,0:01:02.700
There is nothing gained other[br]than money, and power,
0:01:03.200,0:01:07.770
and things that, as people,[br]we should want to push up against.
0:01:08.124,0:01:08.724
Lot of money?
0:01:08.748,0:01:10.748
A lot of money!
0:01:12.720,0:01:16.720
A lot of money. It's huge, huge business.[br]Billions of dollars of business.
0:01:17.800,0:01:22.100
Academic publishing is a 25.2 billion[br]dollar a year industry.
0:01:22.100,0:01:24.170
This journal by Elsevier, Biomaterials,
0:01:24.170,0:01:29.100
costs an average 10,702 dollars for yearly digital subscriptions.
0:01:29.100,0:01:31.850
Is that money well spent?[br]It's hard to say.
0:01:32.580,0:01:37.830
In 1995, Forbes magazine predicted that scholarly[br]research would be the Internet’s first victim.
0:01:38.300,0:01:40.870
Academics are progressive, and surely journals
0:01:40.910,0:01:43.440
would lose power in revenue with digital distribution.
0:01:43.720,0:01:46.420
23 years later,[br]this couldn't be further from the truth.
0:01:46.950,0:01:49.510
I think one thing we learn[br]when we look at history is
0:01:49.520,0:01:51.830
that humans are really[br]bad at predicting the future.
0:01:51.830,0:01:55.200
And this is something that[br]the media, they love to do,
0:01:55.800,0:01:58.900
and people who consume media[br]love to read it. It's fun, it...
0:01:58.900,0:01:59.900
[error sound]
0:01:59.900,0:02:00.900
We are sorry.
0:02:01.100,0:02:03.850
You don’t have the credentials[br]to access this documentary.
0:02:04.410,0:02:06.700
Please see payment options below.
0:02:11.200,0:02:12.200
[blip]
0:02:12.300,0:02:17.300
The scholarly publishing industry makes[br]about a 35 to 40 percent profit margin.
0:02:17.370,0:02:19.310
And different years[br]when I've looked at this,
0:02:19.320,0:02:21.440
you know, Walmart[br]is making around 3 %,
0:02:21.604,0:02:25.024
and Walmart is like this evil,[br]you know, giant for a lot of people.
0:02:25.190,0:02:28.020
But it’s 3 percent compared to 35 percent.
0:02:28.100,0:02:31.629
I mean, I could have flipped my own[br]attitudes now, like,
0:02:31.629,0:02:33.900
Walmart's not that bad compared to some of these
0:02:33.900,0:02:36.000
other players in other industries.
0:02:36.000,0:02:40.000
You know, wealth management industry[br]is around 21 %, Toyota's around 12 %.
0:02:40.500,0:02:46.500
How is it okay for this whole industry[br]to be making so much a profit margin
0:02:47.024,0:02:51.024
when there really aren’t any inputs[br]that they have to pay for?
0:02:51.248,0:02:53.648
(Jason) What are the corporations[br]which you compare
0:02:53.651,0:02:56.151
with that sort of a profit margin,[br]that 32-35?
0:02:56.275,0:02:58.905
I have honestly never heard[br]of corporations
0:02:58.969,0:03:01.299
that have profit margins that are that big.
0:03:01.599,0:03:05.443
In most other lines of,[br]lines of normal enterprise and business,
0:03:05.443,0:03:09.683
that kind of profit margin is the sign[br]of some kind of monopoly logic at work.
0:03:09.727,0:03:15.310
Even though people not in academia[br]may not be reading a lot of these articles,
0:03:15.310,0:03:18.160
may not find them useful,[br]they are still paying for them.
0:03:18.160,0:03:22.850
Your tax dollars go towards governments[br]who then subsidize universities,
0:03:22.900,0:03:27.500
who then provide funds to libraries,[br]who pay publishers through subscription fees.
0:03:27.500,0:03:31.760
The journals and the publishers[br]are getting, um, your money.
0:03:31.760,0:03:35.250
Whether is it's you or your neighbor,[br]everyone is paying into the system.
0:03:35.250,0:03:37.600
And the people benefiting the most[br]are publishers.
0:03:37.810,0:03:40.318
Everybody deserves a profit margin.
0:03:40.318,0:03:42.642
But how can journals - journals! -
0:03:42.642,0:03:45.922
have a profit margin larger than[br]some of the biggest tech companies?
0:03:46.560,0:03:50.040
Well, publishing is so profitable [br]because the workers don’t get paid.
0:03:50.040,0:03:53.969
I mean, in what other industry,[br]I can think of none,
0:03:53.969,0:03:56.413
in which the primary workers,
0:03:56.413,0:03:59.310
in this case, the authors, reviewers,[br]get paid nothing?
0:03:59.310,0:04:03.620
Profit margins in many respects[br]in the publishing are second to none,
0:04:03.620,0:04:08.780
and a few years back, I compared them to[br]Facebook, and I realized they're about
0:04:08.780,0:04:12.700
the equivalent of the most successful[br]software companies today in terms of margins.
0:04:12.700,0:04:15.650
And of course, Facebook has[br]virtually infinite scale
0:04:15.650,0:04:19.040
and there's arguably no more successful[br]company in the last five or ten years.
0:04:19.040,0:04:23.130
So, um, publishing is obscenely profitable
0:04:23.130,0:04:28.110
and because of it, the publisher’s[br]in no rush to see the world change.
0:04:28.564,0:04:31.324
There is a real question[br]as to why the margins are so high,
0:04:31.348,0:04:34.648
like, 35 percent higher than Google’s[br]margins; what’s going on there?
0:04:34.772,0:04:38.772
Well, and that is simply[br]because the pricing power, you know.
0:04:38.773,0:04:43.430
You, if you are Elsevier, let’s say,[br]you have proprietary access;
0:04:43.430,0:04:47.100
you are selling a stream[br]of content to a university.
0:04:47.124,0:04:50.124
And it’s not like, you know,[br]going to the supermarket
0:04:50.148,0:04:53.548
and if there, you know, one beer is too [br]expensive, you choose another one.
0:04:53.572,0:04:56.466
It is not like a university librarian can say,
0:04:56.466,0:04:59.676
"Well, the Elsevier papers are too expensive,[br]we’ll just go with Wiley this year."
0:04:59.676,0:05:01.630
You kind of need all of them.
0:05:01.630,0:05:07.644
And so you have an ability to charge[br]really as much as you want,
0:05:07.668,0:05:10.868
and the universities will rarely[br]actually balk.
0:05:10.868,0:05:15.372
They might pretend to balk, but the [br]reality is that faculty have to have access,
0:05:15.372,0:05:18.266
and that’s a very powerful position[br]for the businesses.
0:05:18.440,0:05:20.140
Here's a problem in the market.
0:05:20.164,0:05:23.864
The market exhibits what[br]someone has called a moral hazard,
0:05:23.904,0:05:27.684
which doesn’t have anything to[br]with morality, [it's] an economic term.
0:05:27.700,0:05:30.500
Moral hazard comes about[br]when the purchasers of the good
0:05:30.500,0:05:32.900
are not the consumers of the good.
0:05:32.900,0:05:35.950
So what is the good here,[br]in the traditional publishing market?
0:05:35.950,0:05:38.530
It's access, you know,[br]readership access.
0:05:38.530,0:05:41.484
The consumers are people like me[br]who want to read the articles,
0:05:41.484,0:05:44.960
the purchasers, though, are not me,[br]I don’t tend to subscribe to journals.
0:05:44.960,0:05:51.314
The Harvard Library spends huge amounts of[br]money subscribing to a huge range of journals.
0:05:51.314,0:05:58.828
So, I am price insensitive to these[br]journals, 'cause I don’t have to pay the bill.
0:05:59.052,0:06:00.452
The money is real. Right?
0:06:00.476,0:06:03.876
Academic publishing[br]for journals is a 10 billion dollar
0:06:03.877,0:06:05.877
a year revenue producing industry.
0:06:05.900,0:06:09.700
This is not chump change.[br]This is a significant amount of money.
0:06:09.700,0:06:14.698
When you think about a profit margin[br]of 30 to 40 percent taken out of that,
0:06:14.698,0:06:17.588
that could be put back[br]into the research enterprise,
0:06:17.588,0:06:20.012
whether it's supporting more science,
0:06:20.012,0:06:21.836
whether it's supporting universities,
0:06:21.836,0:06:24.860
you know, hiring more researchers,[br]paying more faculty,
0:06:24.860,0:06:26.924
making college more affordable,
0:06:26.924,0:06:31.082
that financial aspect is a symptom of
0:06:31.082,0:06:34.152
just how out of alignment[br]this commercial model is
0:06:34.152,0:06:37.336
in trying to stay relevant[br]in the research process.
0:06:37.740,0:06:43.440
Usually we don’t think[br]about the relationship
0:06:43.740,0:06:48.940
between the profit[br]of such companies, on the one hand,
0:06:49.588,0:06:57.588
and the ever-increasing[br]tuition fees at universities,
0:06:57.712,0:06:59.972
but it's also a part of the story.
0:07:00.136,0:07:03.636
We are not talking about[br]a marginal problem.
0:07:03.760,0:07:09.660
We are not talking about[br]the internal issues of the scholars.
0:07:09.684,0:07:13.684
We are talking about[br]very basic social problems.
0:07:13.708,0:07:16.588
What will be the future of our societies?
0:07:17.132,0:07:20.732
Journal prices have been increasing [br]way above the level of inflation
0:07:21.052,0:07:23.752
and well above[br]the rate of the growth of library budgets.
0:07:23.760,0:07:26.010
Not just for years,[br]but for decades.
0:07:26.010,0:07:28.530
And it's been a catastrophe.
0:07:28.530,0:07:31.144
Just ten hours ago,[br]Anthem College shut down.
0:07:31.148,0:07:34.148
Saint Joseph College will be[br]closing its doors.
0:07:34.182,0:07:37.246
Deep in debt, Dowling College[br]is shutting its doors.
0:07:37.246,0:07:39.696
The abrupt closure leaves faculty[br]without jobs
0:07:39.720,0:07:42.720
and thousands of students[br]scrambling to find another school.
0:07:42.744,0:07:46.744
The academy writ large[br]has not really examined
0:07:46.768,0:07:50.542
the full cost[br]of scholarly communication.
0:07:50.542,0:07:54.152
It’s been really the libraries' budgets[br]that have born the brunt of that,
0:07:54.216,0:07:57.116
and we have often had to go[br]hat in hand to the administration
0:07:57.140,0:08:00.640
to get increases for serials,
0:08:01.064,0:08:03.564
specifically science, technology,[br]medicine journals,
0:08:03.588,0:08:06.588
that have just had[br]a rapid increase in price
0:08:06.612,0:08:10.052
for whatever reasons[br]the publishers may claim for that.
0:08:10.136,0:08:14.036
And for profit to go up,[br]scarcity has to prevail.
0:08:14.200,0:08:17.200
Welcome to the world of paywalls[br]blocking research.
0:08:17.524,0:08:19.624
- Have you hit paywalls?[br]- Absolutely.
0:08:19.748,0:08:21.988
I have definitely hit a paywall.
0:08:22.172,0:08:23.982
I hit a paywall frequently.
0:08:23.996,0:08:27.296
- Have you ever hit a paywall?[br]- Oh, pff, yes.
0:08:27.320,0:08:28.120
I hit a paywall.
0:08:28.144,0:08:30.344
Quite often, I’ll find a paywall, yes.
0:08:30.368,0:08:32.668
When I was a student,[br]I definitely hit a paywall.
0:08:33.292,0:08:34.292
I hit paywalls a lot.
0:08:34.916,0:08:37.515
- How do you feel?[br]- I feel really pissed.
0:08:37.539,0:08:41.531
Students graduate,[br]get their Master's,
0:08:41.531,0:08:44.001
flow into those[br]spin-off companies,
0:08:44.001,0:08:46.164
and suddenly they discovered,
0:08:46.200,0:08:50.740
that they could not get[br]access to the research results
0:08:50.788,0:08:54.788
that they needed because they were not[br]longer affiliated with the university.
0:08:54.812,0:09:01.812
They came knocking on my door. And[br]I had to tell them, that, as a librarian,
0:09:01.836,0:09:08.836
I was in this awkward position,[br]that I had to block non-affiliated users
0:09:08.860,0:09:12.860
for access to publicly funded research.
0:09:12.884,0:09:17.784
And that is completely contrary to the [br]mission of a library and a librarian.
0:09:17.808,0:09:19.938
So that was an eye opener.
0:09:19.942,0:09:22.342
Do you want to tell us a[br]little bit about yourself?
0:09:22.342,0:09:24.326
I'm Dwight Parker,
0:09:24.357,0:09:28.917
I'm in the middle of[br]my working on a PhD in Ed Psychology,
0:09:28.917,0:09:32.180
I decided that I needed[br]to take a break from that,
0:09:32.204,0:09:33.444
and I’m selling cars.
0:09:33.444,0:09:36.628
While I was in the program,[br]I had access to lots of things,
0:09:36.652,0:09:39.652
but once you're outside that program,
0:09:39.676,0:09:42.176
if you, those same resources[br]just aren’t available to you;
0:09:42.176,0:09:44.400
at least they weren't to me, anyway.
0:09:44.424,0:09:47.624
In, you know,[br]education psychology was mine,
0:09:47.648,0:09:50.288
and most of the research done[br]is government funded,
0:09:50.288,0:09:53.472
so that's taxpayer money[br]going to fund research,
0:09:53.496,0:09:56.396
that they're then charging for,[br]which is absurd.
0:09:56.420,0:09:58.330
- I mean, it’s absurd.[br]- Absolutely.
0:09:58.344,0:10:00.048
Not to mention it is a public good.
0:10:00.048,0:10:01.968
I mean, certain academic research.
0:10:01.992,0:10:04.512
I need to be able to access[br]that research regardless.
0:10:04.512,0:10:10.616
I mean, I don’t have $79.99 [br]or...to do that.
0:10:11.200,0:10:13.000
Not selling cars.
0:10:13.824,0:10:15.824
Even the coolest car in existence.
0:10:19.380,0:10:23.180
If I worked for Elsevier,[br]I could afford it.
0:10:23.184,0:10:25.464
Yeah, or any one of those.[br]I mean, it's such a…
0:10:25.464,0:10:28.828
Anyway. You know. You guys are doing it,[br]you know, it's so…
0:10:30.952,0:10:33.652
the money just corrupts[br]everything, you know?
0:10:33.660,0:10:36.870
You've got the money, you've got the[br]government, and everybody's all...
0:10:36.870,0:10:39.890
and it is like the science gets lost.[br]Honestly, it gets lost.
0:10:39.910,0:10:42.810
My wife had a[br]pulmonary embolism.
0:10:42.811,0:10:44.211
And they're not sure why.
0:10:44.234,0:10:47.528
And nobody is still sure[br]why she had a pulmonary embolism.
0:10:47.528,0:10:51.308
It could be a number of different things,[br]and so I started doing the thing I do,
0:10:51.308,0:10:53.872
which is get on the Internet[br]and start doing research.
0:10:53.872,0:10:56.100
And you hit all these medical research paywalls
0:10:56.120,0:10:58.000
where people are doing these studies about PE,
0:10:58.030,0:11:02.030
and I can’t afford to spend the money[br]to read a research paper
0:11:02.054,0:11:06.054
only to discover that it’s not relevant[br]to her. Relevant to our situation.
0:11:06.078,0:11:07.878
It might be. It might not be.
0:11:07.902,0:11:10.802
But there's not enough information[br]in front of it for me to tell!
0:11:10.802,0:11:13.826
But it could save her life!
0:11:14.150,0:11:17.250
The reason that we have[br]research is we're trying to solve
0:11:17.274,0:11:19.773
problems in the world.[br]We're trying to cure diseases,
0:11:19.774,0:11:22.674
we're trying to figure out clean water,
0:11:22.698,0:11:25.598
we're trying to figure out[br]how to take poverty to zero.
0:11:25.622,0:11:31.622
We're trying to completely wipe out[br]particular disease states once and for all.
0:11:31.646,0:11:35.646
And, if you want to do that, we've got[br]to make sure that everybody has access.
0:11:35.670,0:11:39.670
Not just rich countries,[br]not just people who have Ph.D.s,
0:11:39.694,0:11:42.494
but everybody gets[br]to read scientific research,
0:11:42.550,0:11:45.550
think about it, and then[br]contribute their ideas.
0:11:45.618,0:11:49.018
And when large portions of the population[br]don’t have access to research,
0:11:49.142,0:11:52.062
the odds of us solving big problems[br]are significantly lower.
0:11:52.066,0:11:55.366
The publishers have been[br]part of curating the scholarly dialogue
0:11:55.367,0:11:58.157
for centuries.[br]And, in that respect, they are vital.
0:11:58.414,0:12:05.314
At the same time, we have a global[br]population, that the vast majority
0:12:05.338,0:12:09.038
does not have access to research[br]about current developments
0:12:09.262,0:12:15.562
in science, medicine, culture,[br]technology, environmental science.
0:12:15.586,0:12:21.586
And are faced with the prospect of trying[br]to make sense of the world without access
0:12:21.610,0:12:25.710
to the best knowledge about it.[br]And, in some sense, that is tragic.
0:12:26.434,0:12:31.134
Western universities have[br]really great funds for their libraries,
0:12:31.135,0:12:32.835
so, they are in the...
0:12:32.858,0:12:37.858
they have the capacity to purchase the [br]journals, give access to their students.
0:12:37.882,0:12:41.782
But, in context of developing countries,[br]libraries are really poor.
0:12:42.306,0:12:45.806
So, you eventually end up doing everything[br]on your own without any support
0:12:45.830,0:12:47.630
from the university or college.
0:12:47.654,0:12:50.654
And even if you're trying to approach[br]your faculties or professors,
0:12:50.678,0:12:53.678
you get the same answers,[br]that "we did it the same way,
0:12:53.702,0:12:56.302
and you’ll have to do it[br]the same way as well."
0:12:56.326,0:13:00.226
So, it just keeps going, and we don’t get[br]a concrete result out of it.
0:13:00.250,0:13:04.250
So, my research was more[br]in very fundamental physics.
0:13:04.274,0:13:06.274
Special relativity, there.
0:13:06.298,0:13:08.798
And many of these[br]papers, again, was
0:13:08.990,0:13:10.790
"you'll have to pay for it."
0:13:10.822,0:13:14.422
I would say I’d never[br]pay it for any paper,
0:13:14.623,0:13:18.646
especially in the economy of Venezuela,[br]right now, it's even worse, unfortunately.
0:13:18.670,0:13:21.770
But even when I was a student there,[br]you just kind of
0:13:21.794,0:13:25.494
take your credit card[br]and buy something from the Internet.
0:13:25.518,0:13:28.618
So, from the lack of access,[br]a movement has sprung out.
0:13:28.642,0:13:31.142
And that movement is called Open Access.
0:13:33.266,0:13:36.066
In its simplest form,[br]Open Access is,
0:13:36.090,0:13:39.470
you know, free and[br]unencumbered access to, um, information.
0:13:39.990,0:13:43.090
Very simply, it's a way to[br]democratize information.
0:13:43.114,0:13:46.114
it’s to reduce disparity[br]and to promote equality.
0:13:46.138,0:13:49.528
There’s lots of academics out there[br]who can build on top of the research
0:13:49.528,0:13:52.462
that’s gone before if they have[br]access to all of the research.
0:13:52.886,0:13:56.087
You might have some of the greatest minds[br]of our generation
0:13:56.087,0:13:59.309
living out in Central African Republic who[br]don’t have access to any of the content.
0:13:59.734,0:14:04.734
So, what they can build on top of this;[br]how can they help move things further faster?
0:14:04.758,0:14:07.758
And I think that is what[br]Open Access is all about.
0:14:07.782,0:14:11.866
It's allowing people who want[br]access to the knowledge
0:14:11.866,0:14:14.826
to have access to the knowledge[br]and take it further.
0:14:15.430,0:14:20.030
I think being passionate[br]about Open Access is great.
0:14:21.354,0:14:23.654
Where I get concerned is
0:14:23.455,0:14:26.455
when somebody’s[br]passion for Open Access
0:14:26.478,0:14:30.278
leads them to be unwilling to think[br]about the costs of it,
0:14:30.302,0:14:31.902
as well as the benefits of it.
0:14:31.926,0:14:36.026
I get concerned when Open Access[br]becomes a religion
0:14:36.050,0:14:38.050
or when it becomes a halo,
0:14:38.074,0:14:44.174
that requires you to love[br]whatever it's placed over.
0:14:44.198,0:14:50.998
If we lose our ability, or, worse,[br]our willingness to think critically,
0:14:51.022,0:14:54.822
to think as critically and analytically[br]about an Open Access model
0:14:54.846,0:14:58.846
as we do about a toll access model,[br]then we are no longer operating
0:14:58.870,0:15:03.770
in the realm of reason and science;[br]we're now operating in the realm of religion.
0:15:03.794,0:15:08.794
And, I'm a religious person myself,[br]I've got nothing against religion,
0:15:08.818,0:15:12.418
but it's important not to confuse[br]it with science.
0:15:12.942,0:15:15.642
I can see how,[br]especially if you’re on the other side,
0:15:15.646,0:15:18.876
it would appear religious.[br]There is a lot of belief for sure, right?
0:15:18.890,0:15:21.750
It is a belief-based[br]movement for a lot of people.
0:15:21.814,0:15:28.814
But a lot of the most powerful pieces of the[br]movement come from the biomedical literature.
0:15:28.838,0:15:33.238
From parents who can’t access it, right?[br]From family members who can’t access it.
0:15:33.262,0:15:37.962
And those take on the element of witness[br]and testimony that is religious,
0:15:37.986,0:15:39.896
at least in overtone, right?
0:15:40.010,0:15:46.010
And there's real power in witness and testimony,[br]that is part of evangelical movements.
0:15:46.134,0:15:50.834
And we can have a nerdy conversation[br]about innovation,
0:15:50.858,0:15:54.858
or I can give you an emotional story;[br]which one goes more viral?
0:15:55.090,0:15:58.920
Movements need to take all kinds, right?[br]Movements are bigger than organizations;
0:15:58.944,0:16:01.344
they're bigger than people[br]when they work, right?
0:16:01.368,0:16:05.168
That's kind of why they work: they take[br]on this rolling avalanche aspect.
0:16:06.192,0:16:09.192
For me, why I am[br]doing this is because of the
0:16:09.300,0:16:11.300
benefits to research efficiency.
0:16:12.606,0:16:14.986
I want to see increased[br]research efficiency overall.
0:16:14.986,0:16:16.150
That is my overall goal.
0:16:16.150,0:16:19.790
If you said, closed science was the way to[br]do that, I would be supporting closed science.
0:16:19.790,0:16:23.664
But that research efficiency[br]comes with increases in quality,
0:16:23.688,0:16:28.768
increases in inclusivity, increases in [br]diversity, increases in innovation.
0:16:28.782,0:16:34.012
Just having more people that[br]can do something is a benefit.
0:16:34.036,0:16:35.436
We have big problems to solve.
0:16:35.436,0:16:37.360
I was very much[br]involved, deeply involved
0:16:37.384,0:16:41.384
in the early days[br]of Open Access in life sciences.
0:16:41.408,0:16:50.408
And our hope was that Open Access would [br]not only bring the very significant change
0:16:50.432,0:16:55.432
in access; it seemed completely crazy[br]that most of research is not available
0:16:55.456,0:16:57.256
to most of the people who need it.
0:16:57.580,0:17:01.480
I had a visit to the University of [br]Belgrade a few years ago,
0:17:01.304,0:17:04.304
and I was meeting with grad students[br]before my lecture,
0:17:04.428,0:17:06.528
and we were going[br]around the room
0:17:06.529,0:17:08.628
talking about what[br]each researcher did,
0:17:08.752,0:17:11.252
{\an3}were working on[br]for their thesis.
0:17:11.276,0:17:15.576
And almost everyone in the room[br]was working on implicit cognition.
0:17:15.599,0:17:17.599
And it was amazing that there were[br]so many students
0:17:17.624,0:17:20.424
working on this particular area of research,[br]and so I said,
0:17:20.448,0:17:26.448
"Why are all of you doing this? How has that[br]become this be the area that's so popular?"
0:17:26.472,0:17:31.572
And the immediate response was, well,[br]"We can access the literature in this area."
0:17:31.596,0:17:33.396
"What do you mean?" I said.
0:17:33.420,0:17:37.420
"Well, there is a norm of all the[br]leading researchers in your field,
0:17:37.444,0:17:41.144
all of you put your papers online.[br]So, we can find them.
0:17:41.168,0:17:43.168
And we can know what’s going[br]on right now in this literature
0:17:43.192,0:17:47.172
that we can’t get access to[br]in other subdisciplines."
0:17:47.216,0:17:49.316
I was blown away by that, right?
0:17:49.340,0:17:54.140
That they made some decisions about what[br]to study based on what they could access.
0:17:56.340,0:17:59.640
When I was[br]directing the Library
0:17:59.864,0:18:05.864
and we had made[br]major cuts in our subscriptions
0:18:06.364,0:18:10.664
because of budgetary constraints,[br]same sort of thing that libraries do,
0:18:10.888,0:18:15.788
and we did a series of focus groups to try[br]to see how people were coping with that.
0:18:15.812,0:18:24.812
And one of the people who really stood out[br]to me was a young M.D. Ph.D. student
0:18:24.836,0:18:28.636
when he talked to his advisor.[br]And the advisor said:
0:18:28.960,0:18:33.260
"These are interesting areas.[br]Read widely in these areas."
0:18:33.384,0:18:40.984
And he said, "So, I have to read widely,[br]but I realize my ability to read widely
0:18:41.000,0:18:45.000
is constrained by what you have access to.
0:18:45.400,0:18:55.400
And so my dissertation topic is going to be[br]constrained by what you are able to afford,
0:18:55.424,0:19:01.224
because I can't get at and read this other[br]material that you no longer have access to."
0:19:01.448,0:19:04.248
Some of the world’s[br]greatest challenges
0:19:04.449,0:19:05.849
are not going[br]to be solved
0:19:05.872,0:19:08.772
by one individual[br]group of researchers.
0:19:08.796,0:19:13.056
And we know that interdisciplinary[br]research and collaboration
0:19:13.056,0:19:15.920
is the way to get to those[br]solutions faster.
0:19:15.944,0:19:21.944
And because so many of those[br]challenges are so prevalent
0:19:21.968,0:19:25.968
- clean water, food security,[br]global warming, public health -
0:19:25.992,0:19:28.992
there's so many challenges[br]that need to be solved
0:19:29.016,0:19:32.246
that there's no reason why we wouldn’t [br]want to do everything we can
0:19:32.246,0:19:34.950
to drive that collaboration[br]and to enable it to happen.
0:19:35.364,0:19:42.664
Medical knowledge and incredible expertise[br]can be found in every far corner of the world;
0:19:42.688,0:19:44.688
we just haven’t tapped into it too often.
0:19:45.412,0:19:51.312
So, um, a friend of mine is a pediatric [br]heart surgeon at Stanford.
0:19:51.336,0:19:55.536
He would observe when[br]he was visiting India,
0:19:55.560,0:19:59.460
and went to an institution[br]that has now treated 10 times
0:19:59.484,0:20:03.084
as many patients as him,[br]and they're able to get
0:20:03.108,0:20:06.108
almost as good results[br]as he gets in Stanford,
0:20:06.132,0:20:09.652
and they can do this between[br]5 and 10 percent the cost.
0:20:09.656,0:20:13.456
And, to me, that’s genius![br]That is genius!
0:20:14.180,0:20:19.180
And, you would think that we in the[br]Western world would want to
0:20:19.204,0:20:23.104
understand what's going on in India as[br]much as they would want to see
0:20:23.128,0:20:26.128
what we're able to do with all[br]our marvels of technology.
0:20:26.152,0:20:30.052
It is an easy conclusion to draw[br]that scholarship must be open
0:20:30.076,0:20:31.976
in order for scholarship to happen.
0:20:32.000,0:20:36.000
And so it’s sort of a curiosity[br]that it isn't already open.
0:20:36.024,0:20:41.124
But that's really because of the[br]history of how we got here.
0:20:41.548,0:20:45.748
Every since the scholarly journal was[br]founded or created in the mid-17th century,
0:20:45.772,0:20:48.772
authors have written for them without pay,
0:20:48.796,0:20:51.196
and they've written for impact,[br]not for money.
0:20:51.220,0:20:56.120
To better understand the research process, we[br]traveled to where research journals originated:
0:20:56.444,0:20:58.444
The Royal Society of London.
0:20:59.168,0:21:01.068
I am Stuart Taylor, I am[br]the publishing director here at the Royal Society.
0:21:01.692,0:21:04.492
The Royal Society is Britain’s[br]national academy of science.
0:21:04.516,0:21:09.316
It was founded in 1660[br]as a society of the early scientists,
0:21:09.340,0:21:11.340
such as Robert Hook and Christopher Wren.
0:21:11.364,0:21:14.864
A few years after that, in 1665,[br]Henry Oldenburg here,
0:21:14.888,0:21:18.888
who's the first secretary of the society,[br]launched the world’s first science journal
0:21:18.912,0:21:19.912
called Philosophical Transactions.
0:21:20.136,0:21:24.636
And that was the first time that the[br]scientific achievements and discoveries
0:21:24.960,0:21:27.560
{\an3}of early scientists[br]was formally recorded.
0:21:27.584,0:21:30.784
{\an3}And that journal[br]has essentially set the model
0:21:30.808,0:21:32.808
{\an3}for what we now[br]know today of science journals.
0:21:33.732,0:21:39.232
Embodying the four principles of archival,[br]registration, dissemination and verification.
0:21:39.856,0:21:44.856
So that means having your discovery[br]associated with your name and a particular date,
0:21:44.880,0:21:50.880
having it verified by review by your peers,[br]having it disseminated to other scientists,
0:21:50.904,0:21:52.904
and also having it archived for the future.
0:21:53.528,0:21:57.528
As soon as there were digital networks,[br]scholars begin sharing scholarship on them.
0:21:57.552,0:22:01.052
Ever since, let’s say the early nineties,
0:22:01.176,0:22:04.276
academics have been seriously[br]promoting Οpen Αccess.
0:22:04.376,0:22:08.376
Not just using the network to distribute[br]scholarship and research,
0:22:08.500,0:22:12.100
but promoting it and trying[br]to foster it for others.
0:22:12.124,0:22:14.124
It may sound like I'm making this up, but
0:22:14.425,0:22:17.525
{\an3}I really felt at the time[br]and I was not alone,
0:22:17.548,0:22:22.448
{\an3}that if you have[br]some wonderful idea
0:22:22.472,0:22:26.472
or you make some breakthrough,[br]you like to think it’s because
0:22:26.496,0:22:36.196
you had some inspiration or[br]you worked harder than anyone else,
0:22:36.220,0:22:40.820
but you don’t like to think it was because[br]you had privileged access to information.
0:22:40.844,0:22:47.844
And so, you know, part of my intent in 1991[br]was just to level the playing field,
0:22:47.868,0:22:52.468
that is, give everybody access to[br]the same information at the same time,
0:22:52.492,0:22:55.292
and not have these, you know,[br]disparities in access.
0:22:55.516,0:23:00.216
Forty percent of all the papers published[br]in the New England Journal of Medicine
0:23:00.240,0:23:02.240
- and then the New England Journal[br]of Medicine is arguably
0:23:02.264,0:23:04.064
the most impactful journal in the world -
0:23:04.088,0:23:10.288
but 40 percent of the authors[br]came from a 150-mile radius of Boston,
0:23:10.312,0:23:13.312
which is where the New England Journal[br]of Medicine is headquartered.
0:23:13.536,0:23:15.336
Publishing is really an insiders’ game.
0:23:15.560,0:23:21.560
Those of us who are insiders have much greater[br]access to publishing and also even reading,
0:23:21.584,0:23:23.484
as we come from the richer of the institutions.
0:23:24.280,0:23:27.680
{\an3}A lot of people are[br]suffering as a result
0:23:28.000,0:23:30.800
{\an3}of the current[br]system in academia.
0:23:31.432,0:23:36.432
We have a lot of doctors who would benefit[br]from having the latest information
0:23:36.456,0:23:40.156
about what the best care[br]to give to their patients.
0:23:40.580,0:23:42.780
There is so much research[br]that has been done already.
0:23:43.004,0:23:48.804
It's ridiculous sometimes when we try[br]to access a paper that was written in 1975.
0:23:48.828,0:23:52.828
And it's still behind a paywall.[br]It doesn’t make any sense.
0:23:52.852,0:23:55.952
Research journals have come a long way[br]since 1665.
0:23:56.176,0:24:00.176
We now have the ability to reach[br]many around the globe, simultaneously
0:24:00.200,0:24:04.200
for next to nothing, and[br]that is a huge benefit for scholars.
0:24:04.324,0:24:08.324
Many authors think that if they[br]publish in a conventional journal,
0:24:08.348,0:24:13.448
especially an important conventional[br]journal, a high-prestige, a high-impact,
0:24:13.472,0:24:16.372
high-quality conventional journal,[br]they're reaching everybody
0:24:16.396,0:24:19.396
who cares about their work.[br]That's false.
0:24:19.420,0:24:23.120
They're reaching everybody who is[br]lucky enough to work in an institution
0:24:23.144,0:24:25.644
that's wealthy enough[br]to subscribe to that journal.
0:24:25.668,0:24:30.368
And even if those journals are relative[br]best-sellers or if they're must-have journals
0:24:30.392,0:24:36.192
that all libraries try to subscribe to, there[br]are still libraries that cannot subscribe to them.
0:24:36.216,0:24:39.716
And many libraries have long since[br]canceled their must-have journals
0:24:39.740,0:24:40.940
just because they don’t have the money.
0:24:40.964,0:24:44.464
So, authors get the benefit[br]of a wider audience,
0:24:44.488,0:24:49.088
and by getting a wider audience[br]they get the benefit of greater impact,
0:24:49.112,0:24:52.812
because you cannot impact in your work,[br]your work cannot be built upon,
0:24:52.836,0:24:56.836
or cited or taken up or used,[br]unless people know what it is.
0:24:56.860,0:24:59.460
And most scholars write for impact.
0:24:59.684,0:25:02.684
Part of what academics[br]do is study questions,
0:25:02.908,0:25:07.208
try to figure out some insight about[br]what they've learned about a phenomenon
0:25:07.632,0:25:11.432
and then share that with others[br]so then those others can then say,
0:25:11.456,0:25:14.456
"Ah, what about this, what about that,[br]are you sure?"
0:25:14.380,0:25:16.980
or "Oh yeah, let me use this[br]in some new way."
0:25:17.004,0:25:21.904
So, really, scholarship is a conversation,[br]and the only way to have a conversation
0:25:21.928,0:25:26.728
is to know what each other is saying[br]and what the basis is for what they're saying.
0:25:26.752,0:25:32.152
And so openness is fundamental to[br]scholarship doing what it’s supposed to do.
0:25:32.776,0:25:35.576
{\an1}There's one of those[br]original myths about Open Access.
0:25:35.800,0:25:38.500
{\an1}There's no peer review,[br]there's low quality, and so forth.
0:25:38.524,0:25:40.524
{\an1}And we know that
0:25:40.525,0:25:42.525
when you put your stuff out in the open,
0:25:42.548,0:25:47.548
people notice, you know,[br]if you BS your way out there,
0:25:47.572,0:25:51.572
you’ll be caught very quickly.[br]If you miss something important,
0:25:51.596,0:25:55.596
in terms of a piece of evidence,[br]someone will point you to it.
0:25:55.620,0:26:00.620
If you are not careful in your argument,[br]or you miss a piece of important literature,
0:26:00.644,0:26:04.144
someone will tell you that.[br]And so you, as a researcher,
0:26:04.168,0:26:08.768
would benefit from these observations[br]and criticisms and other things,
0:26:08.792,0:26:13.792
so your research will be better,[br]not lower quality as a result of it!
0:26:14.416,0:26:16.716
{\an1}If you don’t work[br]in this space, you don’t have any contacts,
0:26:16.740,0:26:19.940
{\an1}you don’t have any concept[br]of the, sort of, dramatic impact
0:26:20.364,0:26:23.664
{\an1}that these tensions[br]are going to have on everyone.
0:26:23.688,0:26:24.888
You know, when you see the EPA[br][Environmental Protection Agency]
0:26:24.912,0:26:28.912
take down its climate change section[br]of its website, there's real,
0:26:28.936,0:26:32.836
concrete impact to not having[br]information be available.
0:26:32.860,0:26:36.860
There's plenty of free information out there,[br]and we all know how problematic it can be.
0:26:36.884,0:26:40.184
Just because it's free doesn't make it good;[br]just because it's paid for doesn't make it bad,
0:26:40.208,0:26:45.208
and I think that's the tension that this[br]community’s always going to have to deal with.
0:26:45.832,0:26:48.832
Of course, in the very early days[br]of the Open Access movement,
0:26:48.856,0:26:55.856
and Open Access journals, this notion that[br]Open Access publishing is not of high quality
0:26:55.880,0:26:58.880
was very predominant,[br]but that has changed now.
0:26:59.404,0:27:00.804
Open Access, to us,
0:27:00.828,0:27:05.928
does not at all denigrate[br]the level of peer review, you know.
0:27:05.952,0:27:09.552
If anything, you know,[br]it's going to be even better.
0:27:09.576,0:27:13.376
{\an3}The reward system in[br]many countries, in many developing countries
0:27:13.400,0:27:16.500
{\an3}still mirrors our own,[br]in the UK and the U.S.
0:27:16.524,0:27:22.624
We did a survey recently, asking[br]about our researchers' perceptions
0:27:22.648,0:27:25.648
of Open Access, and lots of them,[br]you know, were saying
0:27:25.672,0:27:27.672
"Great, Open Access is exactly[br]what we need, we need
0:27:27.696,0:27:31.696
to tell the whole world about our research.[br]Everyone needs access. This is great."
0:27:31.720,0:27:37.720
However, when we asked the researchers[br]what their priorities were for journals,
0:27:37.744,0:27:41.744
where they wanted to publish their journals,[br]the top things were impact factor,
0:27:41.768,0:27:45.568
indexing, and at the bottom of the list,[br]was Open Access.
0:27:45.592,0:27:49.692
So whilst they were saying great things[br]about Open Access,
0:27:49.716,0:27:55.516
unfortunately because of the[br]reward structures, it's nearer the bottom,
0:27:55.640,0:27:57.440
because they still need[br]to progress their career.
0:27:57.464,0:28:01.164
{\an1}Open Access has been[br]with us for some time.
0:28:03.088,0:28:06.988
{\an1}The impact has not been[br]as quick as I expected,
0:28:07.112,0:28:17.112
and I'm kind of worried that in the next[br]5 years, how fast are we going to move?
0:28:17.636,0:28:23.536
{\an3}Is there a reason[br]that research journals are so
0:28:23.560,0:28:24.560
{\an3}lethargic to change?
0:28:25.360,0:28:27.360
{\an3}Well, you might call them[br]resilient [laughter].
0:28:28.484,0:28:34.484
I think there is a certain degree[br]of lethargy. As you know,
0:28:34.508,0:28:38.308
academics are probably the most[br]conservative people on the planet.
0:28:38.332,0:28:41.332
You know, yes, they may be[br]innovating with their research,
0:28:41.356,0:28:45.556
but academic structures[br]are very slow to change.
0:28:45.980,0:28:47.980
{\an3}The academic community[br]is very, very conservative.
0:28:48.904,0:28:53.504
{\an3}It’s very hard to change,[br]make significant system changes,
0:28:53.528,0:28:57.428
in the academic community.[br]Our process for tenure now
0:28:57.452,0:28:59.852
is the same[br]as it was 150 years ago.
0:29:00.476,0:29:04.476
Authors are very aware,[br]that their chances of progress,
0:29:04.500,0:29:06.600
to continue their jobs,[br]getting funding,
0:29:06.624,0:29:11.224
whole aspects of their careers[br]depend on where they publish.
0:29:12.548,0:29:19.248
And this need created[br]a sort of prison
0:29:19.272,0:29:23.272
in which authors cannot have[br]an alternative way to publish
0:29:23.296,0:29:25.796
except to publish in those journals
0:29:25.820,0:29:28.020
that are most likely to help[br]them in their careers.
0:29:28.044,0:29:30.144
One of the big obstacles[br]for Open Access is actually
0:29:30.268,0:29:35.468
the current resource assessment[br]and tenure and all these things.
0:29:35.692,0:29:39.692
Because there still is a tendency[br]to say, okay,
0:29:39.716,0:29:43.716
if you publish four papers[br]in the higher-rank journals,
0:29:43.740,0:29:45.740
you are producing better research.
0:29:45.764,0:29:51.264
It might be so that those papers[br]will never be cited or never read.
0:29:51.288,0:29:56.388
But they take the journal impact factor[br]as a proxy for quality.
0:29:56.412,0:30:01.612
And we know, all of us, that it is[br]subject to gaming and fraud.
0:30:01.936,0:30:05.970
{\an1}The impact factor is[br]actually the average number of citations
0:30:06.160,0:30:12.183
{\an1}that that journal gets over,[br]it’s a 2-year window.
0:30:12.184,0:30:19.584
The impact factor is a perverse metric[br]which has somehow become entrenched
0:30:19.608,0:30:25.808
in the evaluation system and the way[br]researchers are assessed across the world.
0:30:25.832,0:30:31.032
You can charge for a Gucci handbag[br]a hell of a lot more
0:30:31.056,0:30:33.056
that you can for one that you just[br]pick off the high street.
0:30:33.280,0:30:36.190
{\an3}Impact factors have[br]perverted the whole system
0:30:36.281,0:30:38.081
{\an3}of scholarly[br]communications massively.
0:30:38.550,0:30:43.350
Even their founder, Eugene Garfield,[br]said they should not be used in this way.
0:30:43.428,0:30:46.328
Then you must begin to wonder that,[br]you know, there’s something wrong.
0:30:46.452,0:30:49.352
And the faux-scientific nature of them,[br]you know,
0:30:49.356,0:30:51.356
the fact that they are accurate[br]to three decimal places,
0:30:51.500,0:30:59.000
when they’re clearly not, they're[br]given this pseudoscientific feel to them.
0:30:59.024,0:31:01.824
The Royal Society, a few years ago,[br]signed something called
0:31:01.848,0:31:05.248
the San Francisco Declaration on Research[br]Assessment, or DORA for short,
0:31:05.272,0:31:11.272
which essentially calls on institutions[br]and funders to assess scientists
0:31:11.296,0:31:13.796
in ways that don’t use the impact factor.
0:31:13.820,0:31:18.320
So going much more back to peer review,[br]and actually looking at the work itself
0:31:18.344,0:31:20.344
rather than simply relying on a metric
0:31:20.368,0:31:23.868
which many people believe to be[br]a very flawed metric.
0:31:24.592,0:31:27.092
{\an1}But the way of[br]addressing the problem is to
0:31:27.093,0:31:29.693
{\an1}to start divorcing[br]the assessment of an academic
0:31:29.916,0:31:31.316
from the journals in which they're publishing.
0:31:31.340,0:31:34.340
And if you are able to evaluate[br]an academic based on the research
0:31:34.364,0:31:37.264
that they produce on their own, rather than[br]where that research has been published,
0:31:37.388,0:31:42.188
I think you can then start to allow[br]researchers to publish in, you know,
0:31:42.512,0:31:46.512
journals that provide better service,[br]better access, lower cost, all these things.
0:31:46.600,0:31:53.000
Journals that are highly selective reject work[br]that is perfectly publishable and perfectly good,
0:31:53.160,0:31:56.060
but they reject it because[br]it's not a significant advance,
0:31:56.084,0:32:02.084
or it's not going to make the headlines, in the same[br]way as a paper on disease or stem cells might.
0:32:02.108,0:32:04.508
So it gets rejected, and then[br]goes to another journal,
0:32:04.532,0:32:07.532
goes through another round of peer review,
0:32:07.556,0:32:10.056
and you can go through this[br]through several cycles.
0:32:10.380,0:32:17.780
And in fact the rationale of launching[br]PLOS One was exactly to try and stop that,
0:32:17.904,0:32:25.704
rounds and rounds of wasted both[br]scientists' time, reviewers' time, editors' time,
0:32:25.728,0:32:28.928
and ultimately, you know,[br]at the expense of science and society.
0:32:29.252,0:32:36.752
{\an1}The time it takes to go through[br]the top-tier journals and to maybe not make it,
0:32:36.776,0:32:38.576
and then have to go to another journal,
0:32:38.600,0:32:43.400
locks up that particular bit of research[br]in a time warp.
0:32:43.524,0:32:46.524
It is in the interest of research funders[br]who are paying, you know,
0:32:46.548,0:32:48.548
millions or billions of dollars[br]to fund research every year,
0:32:48.572,0:32:51.072
for that research to then[br]be openly available.
0:32:51.196,0:32:53.396
{\an1}There have been a lot of[br]different ways to come at this,
0:32:53.397,0:32:55.497
{\an1}and a lot of people[br]have said, let’s be incremental,
0:32:55.520,0:32:59.120
{\an1}first we’ll create[br]what's called green Open Access,
0:32:59.144,0:33:03.244
where you'll just provide access to the content[br]but no usage rights that are associated with that.
0:33:03.968,0:33:07.668
The Gates Foundation said,[br]"That's only half a loaf,
0:33:07.692,0:33:11.692
we're not in the half a loaf business,[br]if you're gonna do this, go all the way."
0:33:11.716,0:33:15.716
And I really applaud them for[br]not wanting to take the middle step.
0:33:15.740,0:33:19.840
They have enough foresight[br]and, frankly, leverage
0:33:20.064,0:33:22.064
to demand getting it right[br]the first time around.
0:33:22.988,0:33:25.688
{\an1}From the Foundation's[br]prospective we were able to,
0:33:25.712,0:33:28.412
{\an1}through our funding,[br]work with our grantees to say,
0:33:28.536,0:33:32.036
{\an1}"Yes, we are going to[br]give you this money, and, yes, we want you to do
0:33:32.360,0:33:36.660
certain scientific and technical research,[br]and yield a particular outcome,
0:33:36.684,0:33:38.684
but we want you to do it[br]in a particular way."
0:33:38.708,0:33:42.708
And one of the ways that we want[br]people to work is to ensure
0:33:42.732,0:33:46.332
that the results of what they do[br]is broadly open and accessible.
0:33:46.356,0:33:52.156
And, along with that, we want to ensure[br]that not only the money that we spend
0:33:52.180,0:33:55.780
directly on our investments[br]and new science and technology
0:33:56.104,0:33:59.804
yield a tangible benefit to those people,
0:33:59.828,0:34:03.128
but we’d also like to see it to have[br]a multiplier effect so that the information
0:34:03.152,0:34:09.351
and the results of what we funded gets out[br]for broader use by the scientific community,
0:34:09.376,0:34:13.376
the academic community to build on[br]and sort of accelerate
0:34:13.400,0:34:15.600
and expand the results[br]that we are achieving.
0:34:16.224,0:34:20.123
- What comes to mind when[br]you hear of Elsevier?
0:34:20.848,0:34:23.547
Oh my goodness. He-he.
0:34:27.172,0:34:32.871
Yes. Elsevier is a pain in the neck[br]for us in Africa,
0:34:33.196,0:34:36.496
because their prices[br]are too high for us,
0:34:36.820,0:34:38.820
they don’t want to come down.
0:34:39.344,0:34:45.344
{\an1}You know, I think[br]we can say that Elsevier is
0:34:45.467,0:34:47.668
{\an1}actually a good contributor[br]to the publishing community.
0:34:48.292,0:34:50.292
- Elsevier. What comes to mind?
0:34:50.616,0:34:55.616
{\an1}Well, a level of profit that
0:34:55.617,0:34:57.617
{\an1}I think is[br]unfortunately unpalatable.
0:34:58.440,0:35:02.440
And unsupportable, because[br]from a University's point of view,
0:35:02.464,0:35:03.664
of course, it’s all public funds.
0:35:03.688,0:35:07.688
Their licensing practices which have[br]certainly evolved over time.
0:35:07.712,0:35:12.912
You know, if we look at Elsevier's reuse or[br]commercial practices over the past 10 years,
0:35:12.936,0:35:16.336
I think they’ve made a lot of changes[br]that have made them
0:35:16.360,0:35:18.560
more author or researcher-friendly.
0:35:19.484,0:35:24.484
So there is definitely an evolution there.
0:35:25.708,0:35:29.308
{\an1}These publishers, whenever[br]we publish something there,
0:35:28.132,0:35:32.932
{\an1}this is financed by our departments.[br]This is kind of public money.
0:35:33.956,0:35:36.956
So we are paying the money,[br]but they are closing in.
0:35:36.980,0:35:39.680
I would never characterize[br]them as a bad actor.
0:35:39.704,0:35:42.704
I think they do a lot of good[br]for supporting innovation
0:35:42.728,0:35:45.528
and kind of cross-industry initiatives.
0:35:45.952,0:35:48.652
{\an3}There is a lot[br]of reasons why
0:35:48.700,0:35:51.700
{\an3}people focus[br]on Elsevier as kind of the bad guy.
0:35:52.276,0:35:54.876
Have a look at their annual report;[br]it's all online.
0:35:54.900,0:35:57.700
their profits are up; their dividends are up;[br]they’re doing very well;
0:35:57.900,0:36:01.300
they made a couple of billion[br]pounds in profit last year.
0:36:01.348,0:36:07.948
By and large, does our industry[br]treat researchers well?
0:36:07.972,0:36:12.172
Do we act effectively as a responsible[br]midwife for these important
0:36:12.196,0:36:18.496
scholarly concepts or ideas[br]and make them accessible to the world
0:36:18.520,0:36:23.020
and distribute them and reinvest[br]in the community? I would say yes.
0:36:23.544,0:36:26.944
{\an3}I personally think[br]that Elsevier
0:36:27.450,0:36:29.550
{\an3}comes in for[br]a lot of bad press;
0:36:29.568,0:36:31.568
some of it is deserved[br]and earned, I think.
0:36:31.792,0:36:35.792
I also think they have made a lot of[br]smart innovations in publishing
0:36:35.816,0:36:38.816
that we have all learned from.[br]I remember when I moved to UC Press,
0:36:38.840,0:36:41.640
I have moved from 20 years[br]in commercial publishing
0:36:41.664,0:36:46.164
into the non-profit university press world, and[br]it turned out that one of the main concerns
0:36:46.188,0:36:49.388
of some of the staff head was that[br]I was gonna turn UC Press into Elsevier.
0:36:50.712,0:36:56.012
Which, of course, has not happened.[br]But I... More seriously, I think
0:36:56.036,0:37:00.036
that those of us in a sort of non-profit[br]publishing world can actually learn
0:37:00.060,0:37:02.060
a lot from big competitors.
0:37:02.084,0:37:06.084
I worked for Elsevier for a year,[br]so I have to say a disclaimer;
0:37:06.108,0:37:10.108
I also worked for 15 years[br]for non-profit scholarly societies.
0:37:10.132,0:37:13.132
And I was a journal publisher in[br]both of those environments.
0:37:14.056,0:37:18.556
They're different environments. And, for me,[br]my view of commercial publishers was shaped
0:37:18.580,0:37:22.080
by my experience coming out[br]of the scholarly society.
0:37:22.104,0:37:26.104
I worked for the American Astronomical[br]Society, where our core mission was
0:37:26.128,0:37:29.128
to get the science[br]into the hands of the scientists
0:37:29.152,0:37:31.452
when they wanted it,[br]the way they wanted it.
0:37:31.476,0:37:36.476
I went to a commercial publisher.[br]I was recruited by them;
0:37:36.500,0:37:41.000
I thought I was gonna do more of[br]the same. But that was really not the job.
0:37:41.024,0:37:44.524
The job was managing a set of journals[br]to a specific profit margin.
0:37:44.548,0:37:48.348
And that just wasn’t my cup of tea,[br]it didn’t mesh with the values that I have.
0:37:48.372,0:37:50.872
So I went back into[br]not-for-profit publishing.
0:37:50.896,0:37:59.596
I do think it's not that they are[br]bad entities, but their goal is
0:37:59.620,0:38:04.620
to return profits to their shareholders.[br]They're not mission-driven organizations.
0:38:04.644,0:38:07.244
And that is fine;[br]they're commercial companies.
0:38:07.368,0:38:13.068
My question is, right now, in the 21st century[br]when we have these other mechanisms
0:38:13.092,0:38:16.192
that can enable the flow of science,[br]are they helping or hurting?
0:38:16.216,0:38:19.216
And I would like to see them[br]adjust their models to be
0:38:19.240,0:38:21.240
a little bit more helpful[br]rather than harmful.
0:38:21.564,0:38:25.164
There are absolutely just criticisms[br]that can be leveled at Elsevier.
0:38:25.188,0:38:27.588
There are just criticisms[br]that can be leveled at PLOS.
0:38:27.612,0:38:31.612
There are just criticisms that can[br]be leveled at anyone and anything.
0:38:31.636,0:38:37.936
I try not to judge the legitimacy[br]of a criticism based on its target.
0:38:37.960,0:38:41.960
I try to judge the legitimacy[br]of a criticism based on its content.
0:38:44.184,0:38:46.884
Oh yeah, good, I just wanted[br]to make sure someone said this.
0:38:48.108,0:38:51.608
I need to talk about what kind[br]of company Elsevier is.
0:38:52.532,0:38:57.832
The hostility that they sometimes get,[br]it's not just about the money;
0:38:57.856,0:39:00.856
it's about the kind of company[br]they are, right?
0:39:00.880,0:39:05.080
It's the actions they take often,[br]they're anti-collegiate.
0:39:05.104,0:39:09.104
So, when they send take-down notices[br]to academia.edu,
0:39:09.128,0:39:12.328
where academics had put up[br]some pdfs of their research,
0:39:12.352,0:39:14.252
and then they were forced to[br]take them down.
0:39:14.276,0:39:18.276
Obviously the lawsuit against Sci-Hub[br]as well in 2015.
0:39:18.300,0:39:24.700
And, yes, both of those things were illegal,[br]but the academic community doesn't care;
0:39:24.724,0:39:26.324
it doesn't really see them in that way.
0:39:26.648,0:39:28.748
{\an1}When I got the[br]take-down notice, I didn’t get
0:39:28.849,0:39:31.849
{\an1}the take-down[br]notice directly from Elsevier,
0:39:31.900,0:39:35.100
{\an1}they sent it to[br]an official at Princeton.
0:39:35.096,0:39:43.496
In the notice itself, it only mentions a handful[br]of papers by two academics at Princeton.
0:39:43.520,0:39:48.820
Now, if you look at Princeton’s websites,[br]there are probably hundreds if not thousands
0:39:48.844,0:39:52.044
of PDFs of published Elsevier papers.
0:39:52.068,0:39:57.968
So, why did they only target those small amount[br]of papers and just those two researchers?
0:39:58.792,0:40:02.592
I don’t know this for sure, but I suspect[br]it's because they were testing the waters.
0:40:02.616,0:40:05.816
Nothing is preventing Elsevier[br]from doing a web crawl,
0:40:05.840,0:40:10.040
finding all the published PDFs, issuing[br]massive take-down notices
0:40:10.064,0:40:14.064
to everybody who is violating their copyright[br]agreement, but they don’t do that.
0:40:14.088,0:40:17.088
They do that, because I think they're[br]trying to tread softly.
0:40:17.112,0:40:21.112
They don't want to create[br]a wave of anger that will completely
0:40:21.136,0:40:23.636
remove the source of free labor[br]that they depend on.
0:40:23.660,0:40:29.460
So, critically, as it happened,[br]I was grateful to Princeton
0:40:29.484,0:40:34.084
for pushing back against them, and[br]eventually they rescinded the take-down notice.
0:40:34.108,0:40:39.408
And so I think that they have a sort of[br]taste of what it would mean
0:40:39.432,0:40:43.932
to really go up against the body[br]of scientists as a whole.
0:40:44.356,0:40:49.856
The way that Elsevier thinks as[br]an organization is just antithetical
0:40:49.880,0:40:55.880
to how I think a lot of academics[br]think about what it is that they do.
0:40:55.904,0:40:59.904
We sent Freedom of Information requests[br]to every University in the UK.
0:40:59.928,0:41:07.128
So, in 2016, Elsevier received[br]42 million pounds from UK Universities.
0:41:07.952,0:41:11.152
The next biggest publisher was[br]Wiley; now it's at 19 million.
0:41:11.176,0:41:14.976
Elsevier, Wiley, Springer,[br]Taylor and Francis, and Sage,
0:41:15.000,0:41:19.500
between them they take about[br]half of the money, and the rest is spread out.
0:41:20.024,0:41:27.224
Elsevier in particular are a big lobbyist.[br]In the European Union and in Washington as well.
0:41:27.248,0:41:30.248
They employ a lot of staff that are[br]basically full-time lobbyists.
0:41:30.272,0:41:34.572
They have regular meetings[br]with governments around the world
0:41:34.596,0:41:37.096
in order to get across their point of view.
0:41:37.320,0:41:41.820
There is some notion[br]that publishers have
0:41:41.844,0:41:49.244
that publishing has to be very expensive[br]and that publishing requires publicists
0:41:49.368,0:41:55.268
and copy editors, PR agents,[br]managing editors, and so on.
0:41:55.792,0:41:59.292
So many academic institutions,[br]to cope with the burdensome costs,
0:41:59.316,0:42:02.916
have elected to buy research journals[br]in a big-deal format,
0:42:02.940,0:42:04.940
as opposed to specific journal titles.
0:42:05.864,0:42:09.364
{\an3}Each institution, [br]for the most part negotiates,
0:42:09.388,0:42:11.488
{\an3}you know,[br]with each publisher for access
0:42:11.512,0:42:15.212
{\an3}to generally[br]that publisher's entire corpus of research
0:42:15.312,0:42:17.912
or a large portion of it in what's called[br]a big deal.
0:42:18.336,0:42:19.636
{\an1}So, the subscription packages
0:42:19.670,0:42:21.670
{\an1}which most libraries [br]are involved in,
0:42:21.760,0:42:23.960
{\an1}because we can [br]save more money,
0:42:23.961,0:42:26.661
{\an1}are definitely [br]like cable subscriptions.
0:42:26.684,0:42:30.384
You get a lot of content; you may not like[br]always like all the programming.
0:42:30.408,0:42:33.508
But if you wanna pay just[br]for individuals titles,
0:42:33.532,0:42:36.532
the price goes up exponentially,[br]and you can’t afford it.
0:42:36.556,0:42:40.556
So we're stuck in contracts with content[br]that we may or may not need
0:42:40.580,0:42:42.780
to try to keep the price down.
0:42:42.804,0:42:46.804
However, they can remove content[br]from the package without notice.
0:42:46.828,0:42:50.628
So, if a publisher decides that[br]they don’t want a vendor to have
0:42:50.652,0:42:55.352
a certain piece of content in their package[br]anymore, it can be removed immediately.
0:42:55.376,0:42:57.976
That does not mean that[br]you can cancel the contract;
0:42:58.000,0:43:01.300
that just means that you no longer have[br]access, and we have no control over that.
0:43:01.324,0:43:07.324
Although most institutional access to current[br]research operates like cable subscriptions,
0:43:07.348,0:43:10.648
we found one library that has stood[br]its tangible ground.
0:43:10.672,0:43:18.372
What we had to find was a reason for us[br]to be valuable to the research community.
0:43:18.396,0:43:21.396
How could we add value to this proposition,
0:43:21.420,0:43:24.420
even though we cannot support
0:43:24.544,0:43:26.544
{\an3}the rising cost of[br]electronic publications?
0:43:27.244,0:43:29.144
{\an3}And we realized that[br]we could that
0:43:29.200,0:43:31.100
{\an3}by remaining a [br]print-based library.
0:43:31.168,0:43:33.468
- You can’t have a plug pulled[br]on by tangible journals.
0:43:33.492,0:43:35.492
- No, we can’t. We can’t.
0:43:35.516,0:43:40.416
And if the power fails, you know,[br]we still have access to content by flashlight.
0:43:41.040,0:43:45.840
You don't need a login or an[br]institutional affiliation to use our library.
0:43:45.864,0:43:50.764
We are open to the public; even though we[br]are privately funded, we are publicly available.
0:43:51.688,0:43:53.688
You don’t need a login; anybody can access it.
0:43:53.712,0:43:57.712
In the modern world, all the sudden,[br]print-based seems pretty forward leaning.
0:43:57.736,0:44:03.136
Maybe half of our problem was getting roped[br]into digital negotiations in the first place.
0:44:03.660,0:44:11.460
So, imagine a market for cable television[br]where you don't know and you can't find out
0:44:11.500,0:44:14.900
what your next door neighbor is paying[br]for the same package that you have.
0:44:14.924,0:44:17.224
- "How much are you paying for HBO?"[br]- "I can't tell you,
0:44:17.248,0:44:23.048
I signed a non-disclosure with Comcast."[br]Libraries, universities do that all the time.
0:44:23.072,0:44:27.572
Commercial publishers can capture[br]all of what's called the consumer surplus.
0:44:27.596,0:44:32.196
They don't need to pick up a price point[br]that maximizes their revenue
0:44:32.220,0:44:33.920
or profit across the entire market.
0:44:33.944,0:44:37.944
They can negotiate that price point[br]with every single institution.
0:44:38.800,0:44:41.800
And that's important, right, because it's like,[br]if you were buying healthcare
0:44:41.824,0:44:47.624
and the doctor could look at your financials,[br]and be like, "Ah well, if you want this treatment,"
0:44:47.648,0:44:51.648
and, you know, they know you're a millionaire,[br]"then it costs, you know, 500.000 dollars."
0:44:51.972,0:44:54.572
Whereas if you are somebody who[br]does not have as much money,
0:44:54.596,0:44:57.396
they can charge less,[br]but still make a good return.
0:44:57.420,0:45:01.420
I feel like, in many ways, that's sort of how[br]the publishing market functions, right.
0:45:01.444,0:45:04.844
The publishers can look at the endowment,[br]how wealthy an institution is,
0:45:04.868,0:45:07.868
how much they've paid over,[br]you know, previous decades,
0:45:07.892,0:45:10.792
and then charge right up to[br]the level that they think is possible.
0:45:11.116,0:45:13.716
{\an3}There is lot of [br]choice in here for libraries.
0:45:13.717,0:45:15.817
{\an3}Libraries don't have [br]to sign those contracts.
0:45:15.840,0:45:20.040
And public universities, like the[br]University of Michigan have made
0:45:20.064,0:45:23.664
a point of being much more transparent[br]about what we pay for things.
0:45:23.788,0:45:26.588
And the Big Ten Academic Alliance,[br]of which we're a part,
0:45:26.612,0:45:29.812
does a lot of transparent work[br]with each other.
0:45:30.336,0:45:36.636
So, I set off to test the Big Ten's transparency.[br]Unfortunately, I was met with more of the same.
0:45:38.560,0:45:42.560
I always sympathize with the librarians[br]who rail against Elsevier,
0:45:42.584,0:45:47.584
but my response always to them is[br]"Cancel." You don’t cancel.
0:45:47.608,0:45:50.708
"We can't cancel." You can cancel,[br]but you have to make that choice,
0:45:50.732,0:45:53.632
and nobody does,[br]so they keep going strong.
0:45:54.456,0:45:55.756
{\an1}Yeah, and I think [br]that just, you know,
0:45:55.757,0:45:57.257
{\an1}that's all the [br]process of negotiation,
0:45:57.580,0:46:00.580
{\an1}it is a traditional factor
0:46:00.581,0:46:02.581
{\an1}of collections [br]work in libraries,
0:46:02.604,0:46:08.504
and there is a lot of issues with that. But,[br]it’s part of a negotiation type of thing.
0:46:08.528,0:46:11.128
And I don’t see that changing at all because...
0:46:11.152,0:46:14.252
- Could a university, like Rutgers, tell somebody[br]what they paid for it?
0:46:14.376,0:46:18.176
- No, we wouldn't. No.[br]- Because you’re contractually bound not to?
0:46:18.200,0:46:22.200
- Yeah, I mean, this is the way it works. So,[br]again, this is not up to me to comment on
0:46:22.224,0:46:25.224
that particular aspect,[br]but it is the way it works,
0:46:25.248,0:46:29.048
and it's the way it works with all publishers.[br]Not the ones that you hear about.
0:46:29.072,0:46:34.972
But it's, you know, I don’t know what[br]I could compare it to, but it's how it works,
0:46:35.096,0:46:38.896
so I don’t think there is going to be[br]a change in that any time soon.
0:46:39.720,0:46:43.620
You know, I understand why a library[br]wants to get a competitive advantage,
0:46:43.644,0:46:48.544
wants to demonstrate that they are[br]getting an economic benefit,
0:46:48.568,0:46:50.568
getting a larger group of content.
0:46:50.792,0:46:54.792
And institutional libraries are[br]very different from each other,
0:46:54.816,0:46:58.816
and some have to really demonstrate[br]different sorts of value,
0:46:58.840,0:47:01.840
but it is a choice. Libraries don't have[br]to sign confidentiality clauses.
0:47:02.164,0:47:07.964
It's often done in return for what[br]looks like a competitive advantage
0:47:08.588,0:47:11.888
in the short term, but in the long term,[br]it's not a competitive advantage.
0:47:11.912,0:47:16.112
It reduces price transparency and[br]increases the risk of paying more,
0:47:16.136,0:47:18.136
as well as potentially paying less.
0:47:18.160,0:47:22.960
It's fractally secret, right? Everything’s[br]a trade secret at every level.
0:47:22.984,0:47:27.884
How much this cost, who paid what,[br]what the terms were. And that's on purpose.
0:47:28.208,0:47:33.108
It prevents collective bargaining, right?[br]And all these things essentially maintain
0:47:33.132,0:47:35.732
a really radically unfair market.
0:47:36.256,0:47:39.256
There are some people who believe[br]that there's enough money
0:47:39.480,0:47:43.780
right now in scholarly publishing[br]that it just has to be moved around;
0:47:43.904,0:47:50.904
we don’t need to find more money. We just[br]need to change the way it's in the system.
0:47:50.928,0:47:54.928
There has been a growing collective of[br]journals that find it advantageous
0:47:54.952,0:47:56.952
to flip away from the for-profit paradigm.
0:47:57.676,0:47:59.676
{\an1}So, in the case [br]of Lingua/Glossa,
0:47:59.770,0:48:01.470
{\an1}what happened is that[br]that community
0:48:01.500,0:48:03.500
{\an1}of researchers decided[br]that it was enough and then
0:48:03.624,0:48:07.024
the editorial board all resigned.[br]And then started another journal
0:48:07.348,0:48:11.148
on a non-for-profit platform,[br]Open Access, et cetera.
0:48:11.172,0:48:16.072
There's not many cases of moves like that,[br]but what this example shows is that
0:48:16.096,0:48:20.096
it can, indeed, work. So the entire[br]community, or the leaders of that community
0:48:20.120,0:48:24.720
-because that's what basically an editorial board is-[br]leaders of that community
0:48:24.744,0:48:27.744
decided to resign collectively;[br]everyone on the board resigned
0:48:27.768,0:48:33.768
and then started a new journal with exactly[br]the same focus and, in a way,
0:48:33.792,0:48:38.792
the exact same quality, because[br]what gives the quality of a journal?
0:48:38.816,0:48:41.616
It's not the imprint of the publishers.[br]It's actually the editorial chief
0:48:41.640,0:48:45.640
and the editorial board, who make[br]all of the scientific decisions.
0:48:46.264,0:48:47.264
{\an1}My name is [br]Johan Rooryck,
0:48:47.265,0:48:49.065
{\an1}I am a professor [br]of French Linguistics
0:48:49.088,0:48:50.088
{\an1}at Leiden University.
0:48:50.890,0:48:55.090
{\an1}And I am also[br]an editor of a journal.
0:48:55.212,0:48:59.212
First, I was for 16 years the editor[br]of Lingua at Elsevier.
0:48:59.236,0:49:06.536
In 2015, we decided to leave Elsevier and[br]to found an Open Access journal called Glossa,
0:49:06.560,0:49:11.560
basically just the Greek translation[br]of the Latin name to show the continuity.
0:49:11.684,0:49:18.384
So, the organization of Lingua was, like,[br]we had five editors total, so a small editorial team.
0:49:18.708,0:49:21.208
Four associate editors;[br]me as the executive editor.
0:49:21.232,0:49:24.232
And then we had an editorial board[br]of about 30 people.
0:49:24.256,0:49:27.556
I had prepared all of this[br]two years ahead of time,
0:49:27.580,0:49:31.580
so, I mean, Elsevier knew[br]nothing until we flipped.
0:49:31.604,0:49:36.604
So, for two years, between 2013-2015, I had[br]already talked to a number of people
0:49:36.628,0:49:41.428
on the editorial board, but, of course,[br]everything under the radar.
0:49:41.452,0:49:44.952
And I had already talked to all the members[br]of my editorial team to say,
0:49:44.976,0:49:49.876
"Look, I am busy preparing this.[br]If we do this, are you with me
0:49:49.900,0:49:52.500
or are you not with me,[br]because I have to know.
0:49:52.524,0:49:55.524
And because or we all do this together,[br]or we don't."
0:49:55.848,0:49:59.848
And so I all looked them in the eye,[br]and they all said,
0:49:59.872,0:50:02.672
yes, if you manage to do this,[br]we do it.
0:50:02.996,0:50:07.996
Elsevier's editorial body at Lingua shifting[br]to the Open Access equivalent Glossa
0:50:08.020,0:50:12.120
set a precedent of how a successful and[br]respected journal could change
0:50:12.144,0:50:15.844
its business model and yet maintain[br]field-specific credibility,
0:50:16.168,0:50:19.968
quality peer-review,[br]and overall impact.
0:50:20.192,0:50:24.392
We live in a culture that really prioritizes[br]start-ups, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
0:50:24.416,0:50:29.216
And the reality is that, right now, there is[br]literally one company that can innovate
0:50:29.640,0:50:31.640
on the scholarly literature,[br]and that's Google.
0:50:32.064,0:50:35.964
And that's, Google's great; I use[br]Google for everything like most people,
0:50:35.988,0:50:41.088
but I would kind of like it if there were[br]a hundred companies competing for that.
0:50:41.112,0:50:45.112
I would kind of like it if non-profits[br]could compete with them and try to
0:50:45.136,0:50:49.136
create alternatives that said, "You know what,[br]maybe this shouldn't be a commercial product;
0:50:49.160,0:50:50.160
it should be a utility."
0:50:49.984,0:50:53.384
And that kind of competition[br]isn't possible without Open Access.
0:50:53.408,0:50:55.708
That kind of competition is[br]baked into Open Access.
0:50:56.632,0:50:59.732
And you see this from the large[br]commercial publishers,
0:50:59.756,0:51:02.756
you see them understanding that[br]this is actually an important argument.
0:51:02.780,0:51:08.680
They put like little drink straws in[br]and dribble out little bits of content
0:51:08.704,0:51:13.304
that you can do text mining on.[br]We can make cars that can drive.
0:51:15.028,0:51:17.728
You're telling me that[br]we cannot process the literature better?
0:51:17.752,0:51:22.552
If a car can drive itself because of[br]the computational powers we have available,
0:51:22.576,0:51:26.576
and there are more companies competing[br]to make self-driving cars
0:51:26.600,0:51:29.200
then there are to process[br]the biomedical literature
0:51:29.224,0:51:31.224
and help us decide[br]what drug to take.
0:51:31.248,0:51:34.248
That is a direct consequence[br]of a lock-up of the literature.
0:51:34.272,0:51:36.572
That is a fundamental fucking problem.
0:51:36.850,0:51:41.750
We started advocating in Congress for taxpayer[br]access to taxpayer-funded research outputs.
0:51:41.920,0:51:45.920
The most common response[br]we got in our initial Office visits was,
0:51:45.944,0:51:49.044
"You mean the public doesn't[br]already have access to this?"
0:51:49.168,0:51:54.568
Like, there was a disbelief among[br]policymakers. That this was, to them,
0:51:54.592,0:51:57.492
the words 'no-brainer' comes to mind.
0:51:57.616,0:51:59.616
{\an3}Researchers want [br]their work to be read.
0:52:00.140,0:52:02.440
{\an3}They want to advance [br]discovery and innovation.
0:52:03.464,0:52:05.664
{\an3}And while I spend [br]a lot of time fighting over
0:52:05.850,0:52:08.350
{\an3}why work should [br]be open versus closed,
0:52:08.388,0:52:13.688
at the end, the real case is, do we want[br]innovation, or do we not want innovation?
0:52:14.012,0:52:18.812
And I think there is an obvious case[br]for openness to unlock innovation.
0:52:19.036,0:52:28.036
We're seeing a lot of very inventive resistance[br]to this from some of the incumbent publishers.
0:52:28.360,0:52:32.460
But I think there's also[br]a generational factor here.
0:52:32.484,0:52:38.384
I think the younger generation of scientists,[br]of students, of academics,
0:52:38.408,0:52:42.808
just the old model[br]doesn't make sense anymore.
0:52:43.132,0:52:48.132
The public should be ashamed[br]for allowing a model like that to exist.
0:52:48.156,0:52:55.356
We have, today, a set of tools to[br]share knowledge, including academic research,
0:52:55.380,0:52:58.030
in a way that[br]we couldn't 20 years ago.
0:52:58.050,0:53:02.050
You know, I'm seeing in our engagement[br]with the academic sector,
0:53:02.074,0:53:06.174
and by that, I'm referring[br]specifically to our grantees,
0:53:06.198,0:53:10.398
so we make grants to academic institutions,[br]and it's then the academics
0:53:10.422,0:53:12.322
that work there that do the work.
0:53:12.346,0:53:18.746
There's a much stronger appreciation for the[br]role of Open Access to the results of their research.
0:53:18.970,0:53:22.970
You know, they see it as being[br]something that is a benefit to them
0:53:22.994,0:53:27.394
to be able to have access[br]to information, data, and so forth
0:53:27.418,0:53:30.818
that's being generated by others,[br]and so there's much more comfort
0:53:30.842,0:53:35.642
with this notion of information and[br]data being open and accessible.
0:53:36.066,0:53:38.266
{\an1}I'm never sure [br]of the right solution.
0:53:38.590,0:53:40.890
{\an1}Actually, when [br]I talk to publishers,I think,
0:53:40.900,0:53:43.900
{\an1} "Can I do this? [br]Or can't I do this?"
0:53:44.314,0:53:49.414
You know, there are so many[br]questions about copyright;
0:53:49.438,0:53:53.238
there are so many questions[br]about intellectual property;
0:53:53.262,0:53:58.062
there are so many questions about[br]what individual authors can and can’t do
0:53:58.086,0:54:02.086
if they decide to go and[br]publish with a particular journal.
0:54:02.110,0:54:08.110
It just feels like there's so many questions[br]with each interaction.
0:54:08.334,0:54:12.334
One outlet that has streamlined scholarship[br]is that of Sci-Hub,
0:54:12.358,0:54:16.358
which continues to connect individuals[br]directly with the scholarship they need,
0:54:16.382,0:54:19.382
when they need it, for free.
0:54:20.806,0:54:23.606
{\an3}You know, those of us [br]who work in scholarly communications
0:54:23.707,0:54:28.130
{\an3}writ large, right,[br]really have to look at Sci-Hub
0:54:28.254,0:54:31.454
{\an3}as a sort of a poke [br]in the side that says,
0:54:31.554,0:54:32.354
{\an3}"Do better."
0:54:32.378,0:54:37.478
We need to look to Sci-Hub and say,[br]"What is it that we can be doing
0:54:37.502,0:54:40.502
differently about the infrastructure[br]that we've developed
0:54:40.526,0:54:44.926
to distribute journal articles,[br]to distribute scholarship?"
0:54:44.950,0:54:48.950
Because Sci-Hub cracked the code, right?[br]And they did it fairly easily.
0:54:48.974,0:54:52.874
And I think that we need to look[br]at what's happening with Sci-Hub,
0:54:52.898,0:54:56.298
how it evolved, who's using it,[br]who's accessing it,
0:54:56.322,0:55:01.322
and let it be a lesson to us for[br]what we should be doing differently.
0:55:46.470,0:55:52.670
People use websites like Sci-Hub,[br]considered the pirate of academic publishing.
0:55:52.694,0:55:55.294
It's like the Napster of academic publishing.
0:55:55.918,0:56:00.518
I know that they've been in legal battles with[br]Elsevier who shut them down,
0:56:00.542,0:56:04.542
they just open up in a different website. It's[br]still up and running and more popular than ever.
0:56:04.566,0:56:09.766
So, if I had to give advice to graduate students,[br]or people not affiliated with institutions
0:56:09.790,0:56:13.090
that provide access to a lot of these[br]journals, Sci-Hub is a great resource,
0:56:13.114,0:56:16.714
it provides it for free. A lot of people don’t[br]feel guilty about using these resources
0:56:16.738,0:56:20.738
just like when Napster came out, because[br]the industry at present is making too much
0:56:20.762,0:56:24.762
off of the people who are giving[br]of themselves and doing great research,
0:56:24.786,0:56:28.786
and they're being taken advantage of.[br]So, to take advantage of publishers
0:56:28.810,0:56:34.210
and get articles for free that are actually[br]being used to educate or to develop things
0:56:34.234,0:56:36.534
that are used for the public good,[br]it's a trade off that a lot of people
0:56:36.758,0:56:38.358
are willing to make.
0:56:38.382,0:56:40.382
And I am not completely against it.
0:57:06.060,0:57:10.060
You know, I like those acts of what[br]I would consider civil disobedience.
0:57:10.084,0:57:14.784
I think they're important.[br]I think they're a moment when we can,
0:57:14.808,0:57:17.208
should have open discussion around them,
0:57:17.432,0:57:23.132
and I fear that the openness of the discussion[br]is there's no nuance at all.
0:57:23.156,0:57:27.756
It is either, as we've heard, Sci-Hub equals evil.[br]Like, it just has to.
0:57:27.780,0:57:34.080
Sci-hub basically is illegal.[br]It is a totally criminal activity,
0:57:34.104,0:57:40.304
and why anybody thinks it’s appropriate to[br]take somebody else’s intellectual property
0:57:40.528,0:57:43.528
and just steal it basically?
0:57:44.552,0:57:45.552
That bothers me.
0:57:45.576,0:57:47.576
It's not only about people[br]who don’t have access.
0:57:47.600,0:57:52.500
It's even being used by people in[br]institutions that have full access,
0:57:52.524,0:57:55.624
because it works in a very simple[br]and efficient way.
0:57:55.648,0:58:00.948
What Sci-Hub shows is the level of[br]frustration amongst many academics
0:58:00.972,0:58:03.972
about the number of times[br]they encounter a paywall.
0:58:32.960,0:58:36.660
I just feel like we're in the middle,[br]we're in this interstitial period,
0:58:36.684,0:58:39.284
and everyone wants it to be done[br]as opposed to just saying,
0:58:39.308,0:58:42.308
"You know what? None of us really[br]has a clue of what's going to happen
0:58:42.332,0:58:43.832
ιn the next 15-20 years."
0:58:44.956,0:58:49.056
All we know is that we're[br]at the edge of falling off the cliff
0:58:49.080,0:58:52.080
that music fell off of with Napster.[br]That's what Sci-Hub shows me.
0:58:53.004,0:58:57.004
Τhere would not be a demand for Sci-Hub[br]if we had been successful
0:58:57.028,0:59:01.328
or if the publishing industry[br]had been successful, right?
0:59:01.552,0:59:06.552
Arguably, what we did was to create[br]the conditions, right, on both sides,
0:59:06.576,0:59:08.676
us and the publishing industry[br]that led to this moment.
0:59:08.700,0:59:13.500
And, so, you know, now that you[br]see the potential of a system
0:59:13.524,0:59:19.124
that lets you find any paper. I've been[br]using Sci-hub to collect my dad's papers, right.
0:59:19.148,0:59:24.048
My dad died earlier this year, he was a Nobel[br]laureate for his work on climate change.
0:59:24.072,0:59:28.572
I've tried to build an archive of all his papers[br]so I could give it to my son, right.
0:59:28.596,0:59:32.596
Can't do it! Price would be in the[br]tens of thousands of dollars.
0:59:32.620,0:59:39.620
Right. I'm not the only person who needs papers.[br]I'm not the only person who's doing it this way.
0:59:39.844,0:59:43.344
I'm not trying to redistribute[br]these things, right.
0:59:43.368,0:59:48.368
I am literally printing them out into a book. Then[br]I’m gonna just staple it for my son, right?
0:59:48.392,0:59:52.392
So he knows his grand-dad, what his[br]grand-dad did, because he won’t remember it.
0:59:52.616,0:59:56.616
That's a market failure.[br]That’s a tremendous market failure.
0:59:57.840,0:59:59.540
Priorities are going to change.
0:59:59.564,1:00:06.564
And I believe that Elsevier is a business full[br]of smart people, who want discovery to happen,
1:00:06.588,1:00:10.588
but don’t have a better idea on[br]how to make money in the middle.
1:00:10.612,1:00:16.612
And, unfortunately for them, the internet[br]is the story of breaking down gatekeepers.
1:00:17.036,1:00:26.836
They're the gatekeeper, standing between,[br]in some cases, research and discovery.
1:01:00.900,1:01:07.400
If someone's research is behind a paywall,[br]and it stops me from doing research
1:01:07.424,1:01:11.924
in that field in my lifetime, how many[br]more lifetimes do we have to wait
1:01:11.948,1:01:14.948
for somebody else to be able to[br]take that evolutionary step?
1:01:14.972,1:01:20.972
Sometimes, innovation is the right person[br]in the right place at the right time,
1:01:20.996,1:01:25.196
and all a paywall does is ensure that it's[br]a lot less likely that the right person
1:01:25.220,1:01:29.220
is going to be in the right place at[br]the right time to get something done.
1:02:18.140,1:02:22.140
Transcript: Elena Milova, Joshua Conway,[br]anonymous lifespan.io member
1:02:22.164,1:02:25.164
Synchronization: Giannis Tsakonas