1
00:00:19,150 --> 00:00:21,550
This is The State of Things.
I'm Frank Stasio.
2
00:00:22,000 --> 00:00:25,200
A lot of academic research was
paid for with public funding,
3
00:00:25,200 --> 00:00:29,500
but public access is often
restricted by expensive paywalls.
4
00:00:29,500 --> 00:00:32,000
Meanwhile, some academic
publishing companies have higher
5
00:00:32,119 --> 00:00:35,020
profit margins than companies
like Walmart, Google, and Apple.
6
00:00:35,800 --> 00:00:38,800
But there is a movement on the way
that could turn the tide.
7
00:00:44,550 --> 00:00:46,390
Paywall
The Business of Scholarship
8
00:00:47,490 --> 00:00:50,090
Universities are about educating humans,
9
00:00:50,400 --> 00:00:56,900
and there is literally no reason
to keep information from people.
10
00:00:57,000 --> 00:01:02,700
There is nothing gained other
than money, and power,
11
00:01:03,200 --> 00:01:07,770
and things that, as people,
we should want to push up against.
12
00:01:08,124 --> 00:01:08,724
Lot of money?
13
00:01:08,748 --> 00:01:10,748
A lot of money!
14
00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:16,720
A lot of money. It's huge, huge business.
Billions of dollars of business.
15
00:01:17,800 --> 00:01:22,100
Academic publishing is a 25.2 billion
dollar a year industry.
16
00:01:22,100 --> 00:01:24,170
This journal by Elsevier, Biomaterials,
17
00:01:24,170 --> 00:01:29,100
costs an average 10,702 dollars for yearly digital subscriptions.
18
00:01:29,100 --> 00:01:31,850
Is that money well spent?
It's hard to say.
19
00:01:32,580 --> 00:01:37,830
In 1995, Forbes magazine predicted that scholarly
research would be the Internet’s first victim.
20
00:01:38,300 --> 00:01:40,870
Academics are progressive, and surely journals
21
00:01:40,910 --> 00:01:43,440
would lose power in revenue with digital distribution.
22
00:01:43,720 --> 00:01:46,420
23 years later,
this couldn't be further from the truth.
23
00:01:46,950 --> 00:01:49,510
I think one thing we learn
when we look at history is
24
00:01:49,520 --> 00:01:51,830
that humans are really
bad at predicting the future.
25
00:01:51,830 --> 00:01:55,200
And this is something that
the media, they love to do,
26
00:01:55,800 --> 00:01:58,900
and people who consume media
love to read it. It's fun, it...
27
00:01:58,900 --> 00:01:59,900
[error sound]
28
00:01:59,900 --> 00:02:00,900
We are sorry.
29
00:02:01,100 --> 00:02:03,850
You don’t have the credentials
to access this documentary.
30
00:02:04,410 --> 00:02:06,700
Please see payment options below.
31
00:02:11,200 --> 00:02:12,200
[blip]
32
00:02:12,300 --> 00:02:17,300
The scholarly publishing industry makes
about a 35 to 40 percent profit margin.
33
00:02:17,370 --> 00:02:19,310
And different years
when I've looked at this,
34
00:02:19,320 --> 00:02:21,440
you know, Walmart
is making around 3 %,
35
00:02:21,604 --> 00:02:25,024
and Walmart is like this evil,
you know, giant for a lot of people.
36
00:02:25,190 --> 00:02:28,020
But it’s 3 percent compared to 35 percent.
37
00:02:28,100 --> 00:02:31,629
I mean, I could have flipped my own
attitudes now, like,
38
00:02:31,629 --> 00:02:33,900
Walmart's not that bad compared to some of these
39
00:02:33,900 --> 00:02:36,000
other players in other industries.
40
00:02:36,000 --> 00:02:40,000
You know, wealth management industry
is around 21 %, Toyota's around 12 %.
41
00:02:40,500 --> 00:02:46,500
How is it okay for this whole industry
to be making so much a profit margin
42
00:02:47,024 --> 00:02:51,024
when there really aren’t any inputs
that they have to pay for?
43
00:02:51,248 --> 00:02:53,648
(Jason) What are the corporations
which you compare
44
00:02:53,651 --> 00:02:56,151
with that sort of a profit margin,
that 32-35?
45
00:02:56,275 --> 00:02:58,905
I have honestly never heard
of corporations
46
00:02:58,969 --> 00:03:01,299
that have profit margins that are that big.
47
00:03:01,599 --> 00:03:05,443
In most other lines of,
lines of normal enterprise and business,
48
00:03:05,443 --> 00:03:09,683
that kind of profit margin is the sign
of some kind of monopoly logic at work.
49
00:03:09,727 --> 00:03:15,310
Even though people not in academia
may not be reading a lot of these articles,
50
00:03:15,310 --> 00:03:18,160
may not find them useful,
they are still paying for them.
51
00:03:18,160 --> 00:03:22,850
Your tax dollars go towards governments
who then subsidize universities,
52
00:03:22,900 --> 00:03:27,500
who then provide funds to libraries,
who pay publishers through subscription fees.
53
00:03:27,500 --> 00:03:31,760
The journals and the publishers
are getting, um, your money.
54
00:03:31,760 --> 00:03:35,250
Whether is it's you or your neighbor,
everyone is paying into the system.
55
00:03:35,250 --> 00:03:37,600
And the people benefiting the most
are publishers.
56
00:03:37,810 --> 00:03:40,318
Everybody deserves a profit margin.
57
00:03:40,318 --> 00:03:42,642
But how can journals - journals! -
58
00:03:42,642 --> 00:03:45,922
have a profit margin larger than
some of the biggest tech companies?
59
00:03:46,560 --> 00:03:50,040
Well, publishing is so profitable
because the workers don’t get paid.
60
00:03:50,040 --> 00:03:53,969
I mean, in what other industry,
I can think of none,
61
00:03:53,969 --> 00:03:56,413
in which the primary workers,
62
00:03:56,413 --> 00:03:59,310
in this case, the authors, reviewers,
get paid nothing?
63
00:03:59,310 --> 00:04:03,620
Profit margins in many respects
in the publishing are second to none,
64
00:04:03,620 --> 00:04:08,780
and a few years back, I compared them to
Facebook, and I realized they're about
65
00:04:08,780 --> 00:04:12,700
the equivalent of the most successful
software companies today in terms of margins.
66
00:04:12,700 --> 00:04:15,650
And of course, Facebook has
virtually infinite scale
67
00:04:15,650 --> 00:04:19,040
and there's arguably no more successful
company in the last five or ten years.
68
00:04:19,040 --> 00:04:23,130
So, um, publishing is obscenely profitable
69
00:04:23,130 --> 00:04:28,110
and because of it, the publisher’s
in no rush to see the world change.
70
00:04:28,564 --> 00:04:31,324
There is a real question
as to why the margins are so high,
71
00:04:31,348 --> 00:04:34,648
like, 35 percent higher than Google’s
margins; what’s going on there?
72
00:04:34,772 --> 00:04:38,772
Well, and that is simply
because the pricing power, you know.
73
00:04:38,773 --> 00:04:43,430
You, if you are Elsevier, let’s say,
you have proprietary access;
74
00:04:43,430 --> 00:04:47,100
you are selling a stream
of content to a university.
75
00:04:47,124 --> 00:04:50,124
And it’s not like, you know,
going to the supermarket
76
00:04:50,148 --> 00:04:53,548
and if there, you know, one beer is too
expensive, you choose another one.
77
00:04:53,572 --> 00:04:56,466
It is not like a university librarian can say,
78
00:04:56,466 --> 00:04:59,676
"Well, the Elsevier papers are too expensive,
we’ll just go with Wiley this year."
79
00:04:59,676 --> 00:05:01,630
You kind of need all of them.
80
00:05:01,630 --> 00:05:07,644
And so you have an ability to charge
really as much as you want,
81
00:05:07,668 --> 00:05:10,868
and the universities will rarely
actually balk.
82
00:05:10,868 --> 00:05:15,372
They might pretend to balk, but the
reality is that faculty have to have access,
83
00:05:15,372 --> 00:05:18,266
and that’s a very powerful position
for the businesses.
84
00:05:18,440 --> 00:05:20,140
Here's a problem in the market.
85
00:05:20,164 --> 00:05:23,864
The market exhibits what
someone has called a moral hazard,
86
00:05:23,904 --> 00:05:27,684
which doesn’t have anything to
with morality, [it's] an economic term.
87
00:05:27,700 --> 00:05:30,500
Moral hazard comes about
when the purchasers of the good
88
00:05:30,500 --> 00:05:32,900
are not the consumers of the good.
89
00:05:32,900 --> 00:05:35,950
So what is the good here,
in the traditional publishing market?
90
00:05:35,950 --> 00:05:38,530
It's access, you know,
readership access.
91
00:05:38,530 --> 00:05:41,484
The consumers are people like me
who want to read the articles,
92
00:05:41,484 --> 00:05:44,960
the purchasers, though, are not me,
I don’t tend to subscribe to journals.
93
00:05:44,960 --> 00:05:51,314
The Harvard Library spends huge amounts of
money subscribing to a huge range of journals.
94
00:05:51,314 --> 00:05:58,828
So, I am price insensitive to these
journals, 'cause I don’t have to pay the bill.
95
00:05:59,052 --> 00:06:00,452
The money is real. Right?
96
00:06:00,476 --> 00:06:03,876
Academic publishing
for journals is a 10 billion dollar
97
00:06:03,877 --> 00:06:05,877
a year revenue producing industry.
98
00:06:05,900 --> 00:06:09,700
This is not chump change.
This is a significant amount of money.
99
00:06:09,700 --> 00:06:14,698
When you think about a profit margin
of 30 to 40 percent taken out of that,
100
00:06:14,698 --> 00:06:17,588
that could be put back
into the research enterprise,
101
00:06:17,588 --> 00:06:20,012
whether it's supporting more science,
102
00:06:20,012 --> 00:06:21,836
whether it's supporting universities,
103
00:06:21,836 --> 00:06:24,860
you know, hiring more researchers,
paying more faculty,
104
00:06:24,860 --> 00:06:26,924
making college more affordable,
105
00:06:26,924 --> 00:06:31,082
that financial aspect is a symptom of
106
00:06:31,082 --> 00:06:34,152
just how out of alignment
this commercial model is
107
00:06:34,152 --> 00:06:37,336
in trying to stay relevant
in the research process.
108
00:06:37,740 --> 00:06:43,440
Usually we don’t think
about the relationship
109
00:06:43,740 --> 00:06:48,940
between the profit
of such companies, on the one hand,
110
00:06:49,588 --> 00:06:57,588
and the ever-increasing
tuition fees at universities,
111
00:06:57,712 --> 00:06:59,972
but it's also a part of the story.
112
00:07:00,136 --> 00:07:03,636
We are not talking about
a marginal problem.
113
00:07:03,760 --> 00:07:09,660
We are not talking about
the internal issues of the scholars.
114
00:07:09,684 --> 00:07:13,684
We are talking about
very basic social problems.
115
00:07:13,708 --> 00:07:16,588
What will be the future of our societies?
116
00:07:17,132 --> 00:07:20,732
Journal prices have been increasing
way above the level of inflation
117
00:07:21,052 --> 00:07:23,752
and well above
the rate of the growth of library budgets.
118
00:07:23,760 --> 00:07:26,010
Not just for years,
but for decades.
119
00:07:26,010 --> 00:07:28,530
And it's been a catastrophe.
120
00:07:28,530 --> 00:07:31,144
Just ten hours ago,
Anthem College shut down.
121
00:07:31,148 --> 00:07:34,148
Saint Joseph College will be
closing its doors.
122
00:07:34,182 --> 00:07:37,246
Deep in debt, Dowling College
is shutting its doors.
123
00:07:37,246 --> 00:07:39,696
The abrupt closure leaves faculty
without jobs
124
00:07:39,720 --> 00:07:42,720
and thousands of students
scrambling to find another school.
125
00:07:42,744 --> 00:07:46,744
The academy writ large
has not really examined
126
00:07:46,768 --> 00:07:50,542
the full cost
of scholarly communication.
127
00:07:50,542 --> 00:07:54,152
It’s been really the libraries' budgets
that have born the brunt of that,
128
00:07:54,216 --> 00:07:57,116
and we have often had to go
hat in hand to the administration
129
00:07:57,140 --> 00:08:00,640
to get increases for serials,
130
00:08:01,064 --> 00:08:03,564
specifically science, technology,
medicine journals,
131
00:08:03,588 --> 00:08:06,588
that have just had
a rapid increase in price
132
00:08:06,612 --> 00:08:10,052
for whatever reasons
the publishers may claim for that.
133
00:08:10,136 --> 00:08:14,036
And for profit to go up,
scarcity has to prevail.
134
00:08:14,200 --> 00:08:17,200
Welcome to the world of paywalls
blocking research.
135
00:08:17,524 --> 00:08:19,624
- Have you hit paywalls?
- Absolutely.
136
00:08:19,748 --> 00:08:21,988
I have definitely hit a paywall.
137
00:08:22,172 --> 00:08:23,982
I hit a paywall frequently.
138
00:08:23,996 --> 00:08:27,296
- Have you ever hit a paywall?
- Oh, pff, yes.
139
00:08:27,320 --> 00:08:28,120
I hit a paywall.
140
00:08:28,144 --> 00:08:30,344
Quite often, I’ll find a paywall, yes.
141
00:08:30,368 --> 00:08:32,668
When I was a student,
I definitely hit a paywall.
142
00:08:33,292 --> 00:08:34,292
I hit paywalls a lot.
143
00:08:34,916 --> 00:08:37,515
- How do you feel?
- I feel really pissed.
144
00:08:37,539 --> 00:08:41,531
Students graduate,
get their Master's,
145
00:08:41,531 --> 00:08:44,001
flow into those
spin-off companies,
146
00:08:44,001 --> 00:08:46,164
and suddenly they discovered,
147
00:08:46,200 --> 00:08:50,740
that they could not get
access to the research results
148
00:08:50,788 --> 00:08:54,788
that they needed because they were not
longer affiliated with the university.
149
00:08:54,812 --> 00:09:01,812
They came knocking on my door. And
I had to tell them, that, as a librarian,
150
00:09:01,836 --> 00:09:08,836
I was in this awkward position,
that I had to block non-affiliated users
151
00:09:08,860 --> 00:09:12,860
for access to publicly funded research.
152
00:09:12,884 --> 00:09:17,784
And that is completely contrary to the
mission of a library and a librarian.
153
00:09:17,808 --> 00:09:19,938
So that was an eye opener.
154
00:09:19,942 --> 00:09:22,342
Do you want to tell us a
little bit about yourself?
155
00:09:22,342 --> 00:09:24,326
I'm Dwight Parker,
156
00:09:24,357 --> 00:09:28,917
I'm in the middle of
my working on a PhD in Ed Psychology,
157
00:09:28,917 --> 00:09:32,180
I decided that I needed
to take a break from that,
158
00:09:32,204 --> 00:09:33,444
and I’m selling cars.
159
00:09:33,444 --> 00:09:36,628
While I was in the program,
I had access to lots of things,
160
00:09:36,652 --> 00:09:39,652
but once you're outside that program,
161
00:09:39,676 --> 00:09:42,176
if you, those same resources
just aren’t available to you;
162
00:09:42,176 --> 00:09:44,400
at least they weren't to me, anyway.
163
00:09:44,424 --> 00:09:47,624
In, you know,
education psychology was mine,
164
00:09:47,648 --> 00:09:50,288
and most of the research done
is government funded,
165
00:09:50,288 --> 00:09:53,472
so that's taxpayer money
going to fund research,
166
00:09:53,496 --> 00:09:56,396
that they're then charging for,
which is absurd.
167
00:09:56,420 --> 00:09:58,330
- I mean, it’s absurd.
- Absolutely.
168
00:09:58,344 --> 00:10:00,048
Not to mention it is a public good.
169
00:10:00,048 --> 00:10:01,968
I mean, certain academic research.
170
00:10:01,992 --> 00:10:04,512
I need to be able to access
that research regardless.
171
00:10:04,512 --> 00:10:10,616
I mean, I don’t have $79.99
or...to do that.
172
00:10:11,200 --> 00:10:13,000
Not selling cars.
173
00:10:13,824 --> 00:10:15,824
Even the coolest car in existence.
174
00:10:19,380 --> 00:10:23,180
If I worked for Elsevier,
I could afford it.
175
00:10:23,184 --> 00:10:25,464
Yeah, or any one of those.
I mean, it's such a…
176
00:10:25,464 --> 00:10:28,828
Anyway. You know. You guys are doing it,
you know, it's so…
177
00:10:30,952 --> 00:10:33,652
the money just corrupts
everything, you know?
178
00:10:33,660 --> 00:10:36,870
You've got the money, you've got the
government, and everybody's all...
179
00:10:36,870 --> 00:10:39,890
and it is like the science gets lost.
Honestly, it gets lost.
180
00:10:39,910 --> 00:10:42,810
My wife had a
pulmonary embolism.
181
00:10:42,811 --> 00:10:44,211
And they're not sure why.
182
00:10:44,234 --> 00:10:47,528
And nobody is still sure
why she had a pulmonary embolism.
183
00:10:47,528 --> 00:10:51,308
It could be a number of different things,
and so I started doing the thing I do,
184
00:10:51,308 --> 00:10:53,872
which is get on the Internet
and start doing research.
185
00:10:53,872 --> 00:10:56,100
And you hit all these medical research paywalls
186
00:10:56,120 --> 00:10:58,000
where people are doing these studies about PE,
187
00:10:58,030 --> 00:11:02,030
and I can’t afford to spend the money
to read a research paper
188
00:11:02,054 --> 00:11:06,054
only to discover that it’s not relevant
to her. Relevant to our situation.
189
00:11:06,078 --> 00:11:07,878
It might be. It might not be.
190
00:11:07,902 --> 00:11:10,802
But there's not enough information
in front of it for me to tell!
191
00:11:10,802 --> 00:11:13,826
But it could save her life!
192
00:11:14,150 --> 00:11:17,250
The reason that we have
research is we're trying to solve
193
00:11:17,274 --> 00:11:19,773
problems in the world.
We're trying to cure diseases,
194
00:11:19,774 --> 00:11:22,674
we're trying to figure out clean water,
195
00:11:22,698 --> 00:11:25,598
we're trying to figure out
how to take poverty to zero.
196
00:11:25,622 --> 00:11:31,622
We're trying to completely wipe out
particular disease states once and for all.
197
00:11:31,646 --> 00:11:35,646
And, if you want to do that, we've got
to make sure that everybody has access.
198
00:11:35,670 --> 00:11:39,670
Not just rich countries,
not just people who have Ph.D.s,
199
00:11:39,694 --> 00:11:42,494
but everybody gets
to read scientific research,
200
00:11:42,550 --> 00:11:45,550
think about it, and then
contribute their ideas.
201
00:11:45,618 --> 00:11:49,018
And when large portions of the population
don’t have access to research,
202
00:11:49,142 --> 00:11:52,062
the odds of us solving big problems
are significantly lower.
203
00:11:52,066 --> 00:11:55,366
The publishers have been
part of curating the scholarly dialogue
204
00:11:55,367 --> 00:11:58,157
for centuries.
And, in that respect, they are vital.
205
00:11:58,414 --> 00:12:05,314
At the same time, we have a global
population, that the vast majority
206
00:12:05,338 --> 00:12:09,038
does not have access to research
about current developments
207
00:12:09,262 --> 00:12:15,562
in science, medicine, culture,
technology, environmental science.
208
00:12:15,586 --> 00:12:21,586
And are faced with the prospect of trying
to make sense of the world without access
209
00:12:21,610 --> 00:12:25,710
to the best knowledge about it.
And, in some sense, that is tragic.
210
00:12:26,434 --> 00:12:31,134
Western universities have
really great funds for their libraries,
211
00:12:31,135 --> 00:12:32,835
so, they are in the...
212
00:12:32,858 --> 00:12:37,858
they have the capacity to purchase the
journals, give access to their students.
213
00:12:37,882 --> 00:12:41,782
But, in context of developing countries,
libraries are really poor.
214
00:12:42,306 --> 00:12:45,806
So, you eventually end up doing everything
on your own without any support
215
00:12:45,830 --> 00:12:47,630
from the university or college.
216
00:12:47,654 --> 00:12:50,654
And even if you're trying to approach
your faculties or professors,
217
00:12:50,678 --> 00:12:53,678
you get the same answers,
that "we did it the same way,
218
00:12:53,702 --> 00:12:56,302
and you’ll have to do it
the same way as well."
219
00:12:56,326 --> 00:13:00,226
So, it just keeps going, and we don’t get
a concrete result out of it.
220
00:13:00,250 --> 00:13:04,250
So, my research was more
in very fundamental physics.
221
00:13:04,274 --> 00:13:06,274
Special relativity, there.
222
00:13:06,298 --> 00:13:08,798
And many of these
papers, again, was
223
00:13:08,990 --> 00:13:10,790
"you'll have to pay for it."
224
00:13:10,822 --> 00:13:14,422
I would say I’d never
pay it for any paper,
225
00:13:14,623 --> 00:13:18,646
especially in the economy of Venezuela,
right now, it's even worse, unfortunately.
226
00:13:18,670 --> 00:13:21,770
But even when I was a student there,
you just kind of
227
00:13:21,794 --> 00:13:25,494
take your credit card
and buy something from the Internet.
228
00:13:25,518 --> 00:13:28,618
So, from the lack of access,
a movement has sprung out.
229
00:13:28,642 --> 00:13:31,142
And that movement is called Open Access.
230
00:13:33,266 --> 00:13:36,066
In its simplest form,
Open Access is,
231
00:13:36,090 --> 00:13:39,470
you know, free and
unencumbered access to, um, information.
232
00:13:39,990 --> 00:13:43,090
Very simply, it's a way to
democratize information.
233
00:13:43,114 --> 00:13:46,114
it’s to reduce disparity
and to promote equality.
234
00:13:46,138 --> 00:13:49,528
There’s lots of academics out there
who can build on top of the research
235
00:13:49,528 --> 00:13:52,462
that’s gone before if they have
access to all of the research.
236
00:13:52,886 --> 00:13:56,087
You might have some of the greatest minds
of our generation
237
00:13:56,087 --> 00:13:59,309
living out in Central African Republic who
don’t have access to any of the content.
238
00:13:59,734 --> 00:14:04,734
So, what they can build on top of this;
how can they help move things further faster?
239
00:14:04,758 --> 00:14:07,758
And I think that is what
Open Access is all about.
240
00:14:07,782 --> 00:14:11,866
It's allowing people who want
access to the knowledge
241
00:14:11,866 --> 00:14:14,826
to have access to the knowledge
and take it further.
242
00:14:15,430 --> 00:14:20,030
I think being passionate
about Open Access is great.
243
00:14:21,354 --> 00:14:23,654
Where I get concerned is
244
00:14:23,455 --> 00:14:26,455
when somebody’s
passion for Open Access
245
00:14:26,478 --> 00:14:30,278
leads them to be unwilling to think
about the costs of it,
246
00:14:30,302 --> 00:14:31,902
as well as the benefits of it.
247
00:14:31,926 --> 00:14:36,026
I get concerned when Open Access
becomes a religion
248
00:14:36,050 --> 00:14:38,050
or when it becomes a halo,
249
00:14:38,074 --> 00:14:44,174
that requires you to love
whatever it's placed over.
250
00:14:44,198 --> 00:14:50,998
If we lose our ability, or, worse,
our willingness to think critically,
251
00:14:51,022 --> 00:14:54,822
to think as critically and analytically
about an Open Access model
252
00:14:54,846 --> 00:14:58,846
as we do about a toll access model,
then we are no longer operating
253
00:14:58,870 --> 00:15:03,770
in the realm of reason and science;
we're now operating in the realm of religion.
254
00:15:03,794 --> 00:15:08,794
And, I'm a religious person myself,
I've got nothing against religion,
255
00:15:08,818 --> 00:15:12,418
but it's important not to confuse
it with science.
256
00:15:12,942 --> 00:15:15,642
I can see how,
especially if you’re on the other side,
257
00:15:15,646 --> 00:15:18,876
it would appear religious.
There is a lot of belief for sure, right?
258
00:15:18,890 --> 00:15:21,750
It is a belief-based
movement for a lot of people.
259
00:15:21,814 --> 00:15:28,814
But a lot of the most powerful pieces of the
movement come from the biomedical literature.
260
00:15:28,838 --> 00:15:33,238
From parents who can’t access it, right?
From family members who can’t access it.
261
00:15:33,262 --> 00:15:37,962
And those take on the element of witness
and testimony that is religious,
262
00:15:37,986 --> 00:15:39,896
at least in overtone, right?
263
00:15:40,010 --> 00:15:46,010
And there's real power in witness and testimony,
that is part of evangelical movements.
264
00:15:46,134 --> 00:15:50,834
And we can have a nerdy conversation
about innovation,
265
00:15:50,858 --> 00:15:54,858
or I can give you an emotional story;
which one goes more viral?
266
00:15:55,090 --> 00:15:58,920
Movements need to take all kinds, right?
Movements are bigger than organizations;
267
00:15:58,944 --> 00:16:01,344
they're bigger than people
when they work, right?
268
00:16:01,368 --> 00:16:05,168
That's kind of why they work: they take
on this rolling avalanche aspect.
269
00:16:06,192 --> 00:16:09,192
For me, why I am
doing this is because of the
270
00:16:09,300 --> 00:16:11,300
benefits to research efficiency.
271
00:16:12,606 --> 00:16:14,986
I want to see increased
research efficiency overall.
272
00:16:14,986 --> 00:16:16,150
That is my overall goal.
273
00:16:16,150 --> 00:16:19,790
If you said, closed science was the way to
do that, I would be supporting closed science.
274
00:16:19,790 --> 00:16:23,664
But that research efficiency
comes with increases in quality,
275
00:16:23,688 --> 00:16:28,768
increases in inclusivity, increases in
diversity, increases in innovation.
276
00:16:28,782 --> 00:16:34,012
Just having more people that
can do something is a benefit.
277
00:16:34,036 --> 00:16:35,436
We have big problems to solve.
278
00:16:35,436 --> 00:16:37,360
I was very much
involved, deeply involved
279
00:16:37,384 --> 00:16:41,384
in the early days
of Open Access in life sciences.
280
00:16:41,408 --> 00:16:50,408
And our hope was that Open Access would
not only bring the very significant change
281
00:16:50,432 --> 00:16:55,432
in access; it seemed completely crazy
that most of research is not available
282
00:16:55,456 --> 00:16:57,256
to most of the people who need it.
283
00:16:57,580 --> 00:17:01,480
I had a visit to the University of
Belgrade a few years ago,
284
00:17:01,304 --> 00:17:04,304
and I was meeting with grad students
before my lecture,
285
00:17:04,428 --> 00:17:06,528
and we were going
around the room
286
00:17:06,529 --> 00:17:08,628
talking about what
each researcher did,
287
00:17:08,752 --> 00:17:11,252
{\an3}were working on
for their thesis.
288
00:17:11,276 --> 00:17:15,576
And almost everyone in the room
was working on implicit cognition.
289
00:17:15,599 --> 00:17:17,599
And it was amazing that there were
so many students
290
00:17:17,624 --> 00:17:20,424
working on this particular area of research,
and so I said,
291
00:17:20,448 --> 00:17:26,448
"Why are all of you doing this? How has that
become this be the area that's so popular?"
292
00:17:26,472 --> 00:17:31,572
And the immediate response was, well,
"We can access the literature in this area."
293
00:17:31,596 --> 00:17:33,396
"What do you mean?" I said.
294
00:17:33,420 --> 00:17:37,420
"Well, there is a norm of all the
leading researchers in your field,
295
00:17:37,444 --> 00:17:41,144
all of you put your papers online.
So, we can find them.
296
00:17:41,168 --> 00:17:43,168
And we can know what’s going
on right now in this literature
297
00:17:43,192 --> 00:17:47,172
that we can’t get access to
in other subdisciplines."
298
00:17:47,216 --> 00:17:49,316
I was blown away by that, right?
299
00:17:49,340 --> 00:17:54,140
That they made some decisions about what
to study based on what they could access.
300
00:17:56,340 --> 00:17:59,640
When I was
directing the Library
301
00:17:59,864 --> 00:18:05,864
and we had made
major cuts in our subscriptions
302
00:18:06,364 --> 00:18:10,664
because of budgetary constraints,
same sort of thing that libraries do,
303
00:18:10,888 --> 00:18:15,788
and we did a series of focus groups to try
to see how people were coping with that.
304
00:18:15,812 --> 00:18:24,812
And one of the people who really stood out
to me was a young M.D. Ph.D. student
305
00:18:24,836 --> 00:18:28,636
when he talked to his advisor.
And the advisor said:
306
00:18:28,960 --> 00:18:33,260
"These are interesting areas.
Read widely in these areas."
307
00:18:33,384 --> 00:18:40,984
And he said, "So, I have to read widely,
but I realize my ability to read widely
308
00:18:41,000 --> 00:18:45,000
is constrained by what you have access to.
309
00:18:45,400 --> 00:18:55,400
And so my dissertation topic is going to be
constrained by what you are able to afford,
310
00:18:55,424 --> 00:19:01,224
because I can't get at and read this other
material that you no longer have access to."
311
00:19:01,448 --> 00:19:04,248
Some of the world’s
greatest challenges
312
00:19:04,449 --> 00:19:05,849
are not going
to be solved
313
00:19:05,872 --> 00:19:08,772
by one individual
group of researchers.
314
00:19:08,796 --> 00:19:13,056
And we know that interdisciplinary
research and collaboration
315
00:19:13,056 --> 00:19:15,920
is the way to get to those
solutions faster.
316
00:19:15,944 --> 00:19:21,944
And because so many of those
challenges are so prevalent
317
00:19:21,968 --> 00:19:25,968
- clean water, food security,
global warming, public health -
318
00:19:25,992 --> 00:19:28,992
there's so many challenges
that need to be solved
319
00:19:29,016 --> 00:19:32,246
that there's no reason why we wouldn’t
want to do everything we can
320
00:19:32,246 --> 00:19:34,950
to drive that collaboration
and to enable it to happen.
321
00:19:35,364 --> 00:19:42,664
Medical knowledge and incredible expertise
can be found in every far corner of the world;
322
00:19:42,688 --> 00:19:44,688
we just haven’t tapped into it too often.
323
00:19:45,412 --> 00:19:51,312
So, um, a friend of mine is a pediatric
heart surgeon at Stanford.
324
00:19:51,336 --> 00:19:55,536
He would observe when
he was visiting India,
325
00:19:55,560 --> 00:19:59,460
and went to an institution
that has now treated 10 times
326
00:19:59,484 --> 00:20:03,084
as many patients as him,
and they're able to get
327
00:20:03,108 --> 00:20:06,108
almost as good results
as he gets in Stanford,
328
00:20:06,132 --> 00:20:09,652
and they can do this between
5 and 10 percent the cost.
329
00:20:09,656 --> 00:20:13,456
And, to me, that’s genius!
That is genius!
330
00:20:14,180 --> 00:20:19,180
And, you would think that we in the
Western world would want to
331
00:20:19,204 --> 00:20:23,104
understand what's going on in India as
much as they would want to see
332
00:20:23,128 --> 00:20:26,128
what we're able to do with all
our marvels of technology.
333
00:20:26,152 --> 00:20:30,052
It is an easy conclusion to draw
that scholarship must be open
334
00:20:30,076 --> 00:20:31,976
in order for scholarship to happen.
335
00:20:32,000 --> 00:20:36,000
And so it’s sort of a curiosity
that it isn't already open.
336
00:20:36,024 --> 00:20:41,124
But that's really because of the
history of how we got here.
337
00:20:41,548 --> 00:20:45,748
Every since the scholarly journal was
founded or created in the mid-17th century,
338
00:20:45,772 --> 00:20:48,772
authors have written for them without pay,
339
00:20:48,796 --> 00:20:51,196
and they've written for impact,
not for money.
340
00:20:51,220 --> 00:20:56,120
To better understand the research process, we
traveled to where research journals originated:
341
00:20:56,444 --> 00:20:58,444
The Royal Society of London.
342
00:20:59,168 --> 00:21:01,068
I am Stuart Taylor, I am
the publishing director here at the Royal Society.
343
00:21:01,692 --> 00:21:04,492
The Royal Society is Britain’s
national academy of science.
344
00:21:04,516 --> 00:21:09,316
It was founded in 1660
as a society of the early scientists,
345
00:21:09,340 --> 00:21:11,340
such as Robert Hook and Christopher Wren.
346
00:21:11,364 --> 00:21:14,864
A few years after that, in 1665,
Henry Oldenburg here,
347
00:21:14,888 --> 00:21:18,888
who's the first secretary of the society,
launched the world’s first science journal
348
00:21:18,912 --> 00:21:19,912
called Philosophical Transactions.
349
00:21:20,136 --> 00:21:24,636
And that was the first time that the
scientific achievements and discoveries
350
00:21:24,960 --> 00:21:27,560
{\an3}of early scientists
was formally recorded.
351
00:21:27,584 --> 00:21:30,784
{\an3}And that journal
has essentially set the model
352
00:21:30,808 --> 00:21:32,808
{\an3}for what we now
know today of science journals.
353
00:21:33,732 --> 00:21:39,232
Embodying the four principles of archival,
registration, dissemination and verification.
354
00:21:39,856 --> 00:21:44,856
So that means having your discovery
associated with your name and a particular date,
355
00:21:44,880 --> 00:21:50,880
having it verified by review by your peers,
having it disseminated to other scientists,
356
00:21:50,904 --> 00:21:52,904
and also having it archived for the future.
357
00:21:53,528 --> 00:21:57,528
As soon as there were digital networks,
scholars begin sharing scholarship on them.
358
00:21:57,552 --> 00:22:01,052
Ever since, let’s say the early nineties,
359
00:22:01,176 --> 00:22:04,276
academics have been seriously
promoting Οpen Αccess.
360
00:22:04,376 --> 00:22:08,376
Not just using the network to distribute
scholarship and research,
361
00:22:08,500 --> 00:22:12,100
but promoting it and trying
to foster it for others.
362
00:22:12,124 --> 00:22:14,124
It may sound like I'm making this up, but
363
00:22:14,425 --> 00:22:17,525
{\an3}I really felt at the time
and I was not alone,
364
00:22:17,548 --> 00:22:22,448
{\an3}that if you have
some wonderful idea
365
00:22:22,472 --> 00:22:26,472
or you make some breakthrough,
you like to think it’s because
366
00:22:26,496 --> 00:22:36,196
you had some inspiration or
you worked harder than anyone else,
367
00:22:36,220 --> 00:22:40,820
but you don’t like to think it was because
you had privileged access to information.
368
00:22:40,844 --> 00:22:47,844
And so, you know, part of my intent in 1991
was just to level the playing field,
369
00:22:47,868 --> 00:22:52,468
that is, give everybody access to
the same information at the same time,
370
00:22:52,492 --> 00:22:55,292
and not have these, you know,
disparities in access.
371
00:22:55,516 --> 00:23:00,216
Forty percent of all the papers published
in the New England Journal of Medicine
372
00:23:00,240 --> 00:23:02,240
- and then the New England Journal
of Medicine is arguably
373
00:23:02,264 --> 00:23:04,064
the most impactful journal in the world -
374
00:23:04,088 --> 00:23:10,288
but 40 percent of the authors
came from a 150-mile radius of Boston,
375
00:23:10,312 --> 00:23:13,312
which is where the New England Journal
of Medicine is headquartered.
376
00:23:13,536 --> 00:23:15,336
Publishing is really an insiders’ game.
377
00:23:15,560 --> 00:23:21,560
Those of us who are insiders have much greater
access to publishing and also even reading,
378
00:23:21,584 --> 00:23:23,484
as we come from the richer of the institutions.
379
00:23:24,280 --> 00:23:27,680
{\an3}A lot of people are
suffering as a result
380
00:23:28,000 --> 00:23:30,800
{\an3}of the current
system in academia.
381
00:23:31,432 --> 00:23:36,432
We have a lot of doctors who would benefit
from having the latest information
382
00:23:36,456 --> 00:23:40,156
about what the best care
to give to their patients.
383
00:23:40,580 --> 00:23:42,780
There is so much research
that has been done already.
384
00:23:43,004 --> 00:23:48,804
It's ridiculous sometimes when we try
to access a paper that was written in 1975.
385
00:23:48,828 --> 00:23:52,828
And it's still behind a paywall.
It doesn’t make any sense.
386
00:23:52,852 --> 00:23:55,952
Research journals have come a long way
since 1665.
387
00:23:56,176 --> 00:24:00,176
We now have the ability to reach
many around the globe, simultaneously
388
00:24:00,200 --> 00:24:04,200
for next to nothing, and
that is a huge benefit for scholars.
389
00:24:04,324 --> 00:24:08,324
Many authors think that if they
publish in a conventional journal,
390
00:24:08,348 --> 00:24:13,448
especially an important conventional
journal, a high-prestige, a high-impact,
391
00:24:13,472 --> 00:24:16,372
high-quality conventional journal,
they're reaching everybody
392
00:24:16,396 --> 00:24:19,396
who cares about their work.
That's false.
393
00:24:19,420 --> 00:24:23,120
They're reaching everybody who is
lucky enough to work in an institution
394
00:24:23,144 --> 00:24:25,644
that's wealthy enough
to subscribe to that journal.
395
00:24:25,668 --> 00:24:30,368
And even if those journals are relative
best-sellers or if they're must-have journals
396
00:24:30,392 --> 00:24:36,192
that all libraries try to subscribe to, there
are still libraries that cannot subscribe to them.
397
00:24:36,216 --> 00:24:39,716
And many libraries have long since
canceled their must-have journals
398
00:24:39,740 --> 00:24:40,940
just because they don’t have the money.
399
00:24:40,964 --> 00:24:44,464
So, authors get the benefit
of a wider audience,
400
00:24:44,488 --> 00:24:49,088
and by getting a wider audience
they get the benefit of greater impact,
401
00:24:49,112 --> 00:24:52,812
because you cannot impact in your work,
your work cannot be built upon,
402
00:24:52,836 --> 00:24:56,836
or cited or taken up or used,
unless people know what it is.
403
00:24:56,860 --> 00:24:59,460
And most scholars write for impact.
404
00:24:59,684 --> 00:25:02,684
Part of what academics
do is study questions,
405
00:25:02,908 --> 00:25:07,208
try to figure out some insight about
what they've learned about a phenomenon
406
00:25:07,632 --> 00:25:11,432
and then share that with others
so then those others can then say,
407
00:25:11,456 --> 00:25:14,456
"Ah, what about this, what about that,
are you sure?"
408
00:25:14,380 --> 00:25:16,980
or "Oh yeah, let me use this
in some new way."
409
00:25:17,004 --> 00:25:21,904
So, really, scholarship is a conversation,
and the only way to have a conversation
410
00:25:21,928 --> 00:25:26,728
is to know what each other is saying
and what the basis is for what they're saying.
411
00:25:26,752 --> 00:25:32,152
And so openness is fundamental to
scholarship doing what it’s supposed to do.
412
00:25:32,776 --> 00:25:35,576
{\an1}There's one of those
original myths about Open Access.
413
00:25:35,800 --> 00:25:38,500
{\an1}There's no peer review,
there's low quality, and so forth.
414
00:25:38,524 --> 00:25:40,524
{\an1}And we know that
415
00:25:40,525 --> 00:25:42,525
when you put your stuff out in the open,
416
00:25:42,548 --> 00:25:47,548
people notice, you know,
if you BS your way out there,
417
00:25:47,572 --> 00:25:51,572
you’ll be caught very quickly.
If you miss something important,
418
00:25:51,596 --> 00:25:55,596
in terms of a piece of evidence,
someone will point you to it.
419
00:25:55,620 --> 00:26:00,620
If you are not careful in your argument,
or you miss a piece of important literature,
420
00:26:00,644 --> 00:26:04,144
someone will tell you that.
And so you, as a researcher,
421
00:26:04,168 --> 00:26:08,768
would benefit from these observations
and criticisms and other things,
422
00:26:08,792 --> 00:26:13,792
so your research will be better,
not lower quality as a result of it!
423
00:26:14,416 --> 00:26:16,716
{\an1}If you don’t work
in this space, you don’t have any contacts,
424
00:26:16,740 --> 00:26:19,940
{\an1}you don’t have any concept
of the, sort of, dramatic impact
425
00:26:20,364 --> 00:26:23,664
{\an1}that these tensions
are going to have on everyone.
426
00:26:23,688 --> 00:26:24,888
You know, when you see the EPA
[Environmental Protection Agency]
427
00:26:24,912 --> 00:26:28,912
take down its climate change section
of its website, there's real,
428
00:26:28,936 --> 00:26:32,836
concrete impact to not having
information be available.
429
00:26:32,860 --> 00:26:36,860
There's plenty of free information out there,
and we all know how problematic it can be.
430
00:26:36,884 --> 00:26:40,184
Just because it's free doesn't make it good;
just because it's paid for doesn't make it bad,
431
00:26:40,208 --> 00:26:45,208
and I think that's the tension that this
community’s always going to have to deal with.
432
00:26:45,832 --> 00:26:48,832
Of course, in the very early days
of the Open Access movement,
433
00:26:48,856 --> 00:26:55,856
and Open Access journals, this notion that
Open Access publishing is not of high quality
434
00:26:55,880 --> 00:26:58,880
was very predominant,
but that has changed now.
435
00:26:59,404 --> 00:27:00,804
Open Access, to us,
436
00:27:00,828 --> 00:27:05,928
does not at all denigrate
the level of peer review, you know.
437
00:27:05,952 --> 00:27:09,552
If anything, you know,
it's going to be even better.
438
00:27:09,576 --> 00:27:13,376
{\an3}The reward system in
many countries, in many developing countries
439
00:27:13,400 --> 00:27:16,500
{\an3}still mirrors our own,
in the UK and the U.S.
440
00:27:16,524 --> 00:27:22,624
We did a survey recently, asking
about our researchers' perceptions
441
00:27:22,648 --> 00:27:25,648
of Open Access, and lots of them,
you know, were saying
442
00:27:25,672 --> 00:27:27,672
"Great, Open Access is exactly
what we need, we need
443
00:27:27,696 --> 00:27:31,696
to tell the whole world about our research.
Everyone needs access. This is great."
444
00:27:31,720 --> 00:27:37,720
However, when we asked the researchers
what their priorities were for journals,
445
00:27:37,744 --> 00:27:41,744
where they wanted to publish their journals,
the top things were impact factor,
446
00:27:41,768 --> 00:27:45,568
indexing, and at the bottom of the list,
was Open Access.
447
00:27:45,592 --> 00:27:49,692
So whilst they were saying great things
about Open Access,
448
00:27:49,716 --> 00:27:55,516
unfortunately because of the
reward structures, it's nearer the bottom,
449
00:27:55,640 --> 00:27:57,440
because they still need
to progress their career.
450
00:27:57,464 --> 00:28:01,164
{\an1}Open Access has been
with us for some time.
451
00:28:03,088 --> 00:28:06,988
{\an1}The impact has not been
as quick as I expected,
452
00:28:07,112 --> 00:28:17,112
and I'm kind of worried that in the next
5 years, how fast are we going to move?
453
00:28:17,636 --> 00:28:23,536
{\an3}Is there a reason
that research journals are so
454
00:28:23,560 --> 00:28:24,560
{\an3}lethargic to change?
455
00:28:25,360 --> 00:28:27,360
{\an3}Well, you might call them
resilient [laughter].
456
00:28:28,484 --> 00:28:34,484
I think there is a certain degree
of lethargy. As you know,
457
00:28:34,508 --> 00:28:38,308
academics are probably the most
conservative people on the planet.
458
00:28:38,332 --> 00:28:41,332
You know, yes, they may be
innovating with their research,
459
00:28:41,356 --> 00:28:45,556
but academic structures
are very slow to change.
460
00:28:45,980 --> 00:28:47,980
{\an3}The academic community
is very, very conservative.
461
00:28:48,904 --> 00:28:53,504
{\an3}It’s very hard to change,
make significant system changes,
462
00:28:53,528 --> 00:28:57,428
in the academic community.
Our process for tenure now
463
00:28:57,452 --> 00:28:59,852
is the same
as it was 150 years ago.
464
00:29:00,476 --> 00:29:04,476
Authors are very aware,
that their chances of progress,
465
00:29:04,500 --> 00:29:06,600
to continue their jobs,
getting funding,
466
00:29:06,624 --> 00:29:11,224
whole aspects of their careers
depend on where they publish.
467
00:29:12,548 --> 00:29:19,248
And this need created
a sort of prison
468
00:29:19,272 --> 00:29:23,272
in which authors cannot have
an alternative way to publish
469
00:29:23,296 --> 00:29:25,796
except to publish in those journals
470
00:29:25,820 --> 00:29:28,020
that are most likely to help
them in their careers.
471
00:29:28,044 --> 00:29:30,144
One of the big obstacles
for Open Access is actually
472
00:29:30,268 --> 00:29:35,468
the current resource assessment
and tenure and all these things.
473
00:29:35,692 --> 00:29:39,692
Because there still is a tendency
to say, okay,
474
00:29:39,716 --> 00:29:43,716
if you publish four papers
in the higher-rank journals,
475
00:29:43,740 --> 00:29:45,740
you are producing better research.
476
00:29:45,764 --> 00:29:51,264
It might be so that those papers
will never be cited or never read.
477
00:29:51,288 --> 00:29:56,388
But they take the journal impact factor
as a proxy for quality.
478
00:29:56,412 --> 00:30:01,612
And we know, all of us, that it is
subject to gaming and fraud.
479
00:30:01,936 --> 00:30:05,970
{\an1}The impact factor is
actually the average number of citations
480
00:30:06,160 --> 00:30:12,183
{\an1}that that journal gets over,
it’s a 2-year window.
481
00:30:12,184 --> 00:30:19,584
The impact factor is a perverse metric
which has somehow become entrenched
482
00:30:19,608 --> 00:30:25,808
in the evaluation system and the way
researchers are assessed across the world.
483
00:30:25,832 --> 00:30:31,032
You can charge for a Gucci handbag
a hell of a lot more
484
00:30:31,056 --> 00:30:33,056
that you can for one that you just
pick off the high street.
485
00:30:33,280 --> 00:30:36,190
{\an3}Impact factors have
perverted the whole system
486
00:30:36,281 --> 00:30:38,081
{\an3}of scholarly
communications massively.
487
00:30:38,550 --> 00:30:43,350
Even their founder, Eugene Garfield,
said they should not be used in this way.
488
00:30:43,428 --> 00:30:46,328
Then you must begin to wonder that,
you know, there’s something wrong.
489
00:30:46,452 --> 00:30:49,352
And the faux-scientific nature of them,
you know,
490
00:30:49,356 --> 00:30:51,356
the fact that they are accurate
to three decimal places,
491
00:30:51,500 --> 00:30:59,000
when they’re clearly not, they're
given this pseudoscientific feel to them.
492
00:30:59,024 --> 00:31:01,824
The Royal Society, a few years ago,
signed something called
493
00:31:01,848 --> 00:31:05,248
the San Francisco Declaration on Research
Assessment, or DORA for short,
494
00:31:05,272 --> 00:31:11,272
which essentially calls on institutions
and funders to assess scientists
495
00:31:11,296 --> 00:31:13,796
in ways that don’t use the impact factor.
496
00:31:13,820 --> 00:31:18,320
So going much more back to peer review,
and actually looking at the work itself
497
00:31:18,344 --> 00:31:20,344
rather than simply relying on a metric
498
00:31:20,368 --> 00:31:23,868
which many people believe to be
a very flawed metric.
499
00:31:24,592 --> 00:31:27,092
{\an1}But the way of
addressing the problem is to
500
00:31:27,093 --> 00:31:29,693
{\an1}to start divorcing
the assessment of an academic
501
00:31:29,916 --> 00:31:31,316
from the journals in which they're publishing.
502
00:31:31,340 --> 00:31:34,340
And if you are able to evaluate
an academic based on the research
503
00:31:34,364 --> 00:31:37,264
that they produce on their own, rather than
where that research has been published,
504
00:31:37,388 --> 00:31:42,188
I think you can then start to allow
researchers to publish in, you know,
505
00:31:42,512 --> 00:31:46,512
journals that provide better service,
better access, lower cost, all these things.
506
00:31:46,600 --> 00:31:53,000
Journals that are highly selective reject work
that is perfectly publishable and perfectly good,
507
00:31:53,160 --> 00:31:56,060
but they reject it because
it's not a significant advance,
508
00:31:56,084 --> 00:32:02,084
or it's not going to make the headlines, in the same
way as a paper on disease or stem cells might.
509
00:32:02,108 --> 00:32:04,508
So it gets rejected, and then
goes to another journal,
510
00:32:04,532 --> 00:32:07,532
goes through another round of peer review,
511
00:32:07,556 --> 00:32:10,056
and you can go through this
through several cycles.
512
00:32:10,380 --> 00:32:17,780
And in fact the rationale of launching
PLOS One was exactly to try and stop that,
513
00:32:17,904 --> 00:32:25,704
rounds and rounds of wasted both
scientists' time, reviewers' time, editors' time,
514
00:32:25,728 --> 00:32:28,928
and ultimately, you know,
at the expense of science and society.
515
00:32:29,252 --> 00:32:36,752
{\an1}The time it takes to go through
the top-tier journals and to maybe not make it,
516
00:32:36,776 --> 00:32:38,576
and then have to go to another journal,
517
00:32:38,600 --> 00:32:43,400
locks up that particular bit of research
in a time warp.
518
00:32:43,524 --> 00:32:46,524
It is in the interest of research funders
who are paying, you know,
519
00:32:46,548 --> 00:32:48,548
millions or billions of dollars
to fund research every year,
520
00:32:48,572 --> 00:32:51,072
for that research to then
be openly available.
521
00:32:51,196 --> 00:32:53,396
{\an1}There have been a lot of
different ways to come at this,
522
00:32:53,397 --> 00:32:55,497
{\an1}and a lot of people
have said, let’s be incremental,
523
00:32:55,520 --> 00:32:59,120
{\an1}first we’ll create
what's called green Open Access,
524
00:32:59,144 --> 00:33:03,244
where you'll just provide access to the content
but no usage rights that are associated with that.
525
00:33:03,968 --> 00:33:07,668
The Gates Foundation said,
"That's only half a loaf,
526
00:33:07,692 --> 00:33:11,692
we're not in the half a loaf business,
if you're gonna do this, go all the way."
527
00:33:11,716 --> 00:33:15,716
And I really applaud them for
not wanting to take the middle step.
528
00:33:15,740 --> 00:33:19,840
They have enough foresight
and, frankly, leverage
529
00:33:20,064 --> 00:33:22,064
to demand getting it right
the first time around.
530
00:33:22,988 --> 00:33:25,688
{\an1}From the Foundation's
prospective we were able to,
531
00:33:25,712 --> 00:33:28,412
{\an1}through our funding,
work with our grantees to say,
532
00:33:28,536 --> 00:33:32,036
{\an1}"Yes, we are going to
give you this money, and, yes, we want you to do
533
00:33:32,360 --> 00:33:36,660
certain scientific and technical research,
and yield a particular outcome,
534
00:33:36,684 --> 00:33:38,684
but we want you to do it
in a particular way."
535
00:33:38,708 --> 00:33:42,708
And one of the ways that we want
people to work is to ensure
536
00:33:42,732 --> 00:33:46,332
that the results of what they do
is broadly open and accessible.
537
00:33:46,356 --> 00:33:52,156
And, along with that, we want to ensure
that not only the money that we spend
538
00:33:52,180 --> 00:33:55,780
directly on our investments
and new science and technology
539
00:33:56,104 --> 00:33:59,804
yield a tangible benefit to those people,
540
00:33:59,828 --> 00:34:03,128
but we’d also like to see it to have
a multiplier effect so that the information
541
00:34:03,152 --> 00:34:09,351
and the results of what we funded gets out
for broader use by the scientific community,
542
00:34:09,376 --> 00:34:13,376
the academic community to build on
and sort of accelerate
543
00:34:13,400 --> 00:34:15,600
and expand the results
that we are achieving.
544
00:34:16,224 --> 00:34:20,123
- What comes to mind when
you hear of Elsevier?
545
00:34:20,848 --> 00:34:23,547
Oh my goodness. He-he.
546
00:34:27,172 --> 00:34:32,871
Yes. Elsevier is a pain in the neck
for us in Africa,
547
00:34:33,196 --> 00:34:36,496
because their prices
are too high for us,
548
00:34:36,820 --> 00:34:38,820
they don’t want to come down.
549
00:34:39,344 --> 00:34:45,344
{\an1}You know, I think
we can say that Elsevier is
550
00:34:45,467 --> 00:34:47,668
{\an1}actually a good contributor
to the publishing community.
551
00:34:48,292 --> 00:34:50,292
- Elsevier. What comes to mind?
552
00:34:50,616 --> 00:34:55,616
{\an1}Well, a level of profit that
553
00:34:55,617 --> 00:34:57,617
{\an1}I think is
unfortunately unpalatable.
554
00:34:58,440 --> 00:35:02,440
And unsupportable, because
from a University's point of view,
555
00:35:02,464 --> 00:35:03,664
of course, it’s all public funds.
556
00:35:03,688 --> 00:35:07,688
Their licensing practices which have
certainly evolved over time.
557
00:35:07,712 --> 00:35:12,912
You know, if we look at Elsevier's reuse or
commercial practices over the past 10 years,
558
00:35:12,936 --> 00:35:16,336
I think they’ve made a lot of changes
that have made them
559
00:35:16,360 --> 00:35:18,560
more author or researcher-friendly.
560
00:35:19,484 --> 00:35:24,484
So there is definitely an evolution there.
561
00:35:25,708 --> 00:35:29,308
{\an1}These publishers, whenever
we publish something there,
562
00:35:28,132 --> 00:35:32,932
{\an1}this is financed by our departments.
This is kind of public money.
563
00:35:33,956 --> 00:35:36,956
So we are paying the money,
but they are closing in.
564
00:35:36,980 --> 00:35:39,680
I would never characterize
them as a bad actor.
565
00:35:39,704 --> 00:35:42,704
I think they do a lot of good
for supporting innovation
566
00:35:42,728 --> 00:35:45,528
and kind of cross-industry initiatives.
567
00:35:45,952 --> 00:35:48,652
{\an3}There is a lot
of reasons why
568
00:35:48,700 --> 00:35:51,700
{\an3}people focus
on Elsevier as kind of the bad guy.
569
00:35:52,276 --> 00:35:54,876
Have a look at their annual report;
it's all online.
570
00:35:54,900 --> 00:35:57,700
their profits are up; their dividends are up;
they’re doing very well;
571
00:35:57,900 --> 00:36:01,300
they made a couple of billion
pounds in profit last year.
572
00:36:01,348 --> 00:36:07,948
By and large, does our industry
treat researchers well?
573
00:36:07,972 --> 00:36:12,172
Do we act effectively as a responsible
midwife for these important
574
00:36:12,196 --> 00:36:18,496
scholarly concepts or ideas
and make them accessible to the world
575
00:36:18,520 --> 00:36:23,020
and distribute them and reinvest
in the community? I would say yes.
576
00:36:23,544 --> 00:36:26,944
{\an3}I personally think
that Elsevier
577
00:36:27,450 --> 00:36:29,550
{\an3}comes in for
a lot of bad press;
578
00:36:29,568 --> 00:36:31,568
some of it is deserved
and earned, I think.
579
00:36:31,792 --> 00:36:35,792
I also think they have made a lot of
smart innovations in publishing
580
00:36:35,816 --> 00:36:38,816
that we have all learned from.
I remember when I moved to UC Press,
581
00:36:38,840 --> 00:36:41,640
I have moved from 20 years
in commercial publishing
582
00:36:41,664 --> 00:36:46,164
into the non-profit university press world, and
it turned out that one of the main concerns
583
00:36:46,188 --> 00:36:49,388
of some of the staff head was that
I was gonna turn UC Press into Elsevier.
584
00:36:50,712 --> 00:36:56,012
Which, of course, has not happened.
But I... More seriously, I think
585
00:36:56,036 --> 00:37:00,036
that those of us in a sort of non-profit
publishing world can actually learn
586
00:37:00,060 --> 00:37:02,060
a lot from big competitors.
587
00:37:02,084 --> 00:37:06,084
I worked for Elsevier for a year,
so I have to say a disclaimer;
588
00:37:06,108 --> 00:37:10,108
I also worked for 15 years
for non-profit scholarly societies.
589
00:37:10,132 --> 00:37:13,132
And I was a journal publisher in
both of those environments.
590
00:37:14,056 --> 00:37:18,556
They're different environments. And, for me,
my view of commercial publishers was shaped
591
00:37:18,580 --> 00:37:22,080
by my experience coming out
of the scholarly society.
592
00:37:22,104 --> 00:37:26,104
I worked for the American Astronomical
Society, where our core mission was
593
00:37:26,128 --> 00:37:29,128
to get the science
into the hands of the scientists
594
00:37:29,152 --> 00:37:31,452
when they wanted it,
the way they wanted it.
595
00:37:31,476 --> 00:37:36,476
I went to a commercial publisher.
I was recruited by them;
596
00:37:36,500 --> 00:37:41,000
I thought I was gonna do more of
the same. But that was really not the job.
597
00:37:41,024 --> 00:37:44,524
The job was managing a set of journals
to a specific profit margin.
598
00:37:44,548 --> 00:37:48,348
And that just wasn’t my cup of tea,
it didn’t mesh with the values that I have.
599
00:37:48,372 --> 00:37:50,872
So I went back into
not-for-profit publishing.
600
00:37:50,896 --> 00:37:59,596
I do think it's not that they are
bad entities, but their goal is
601
00:37:59,620 --> 00:38:04,620
to return profits to their shareholders.
They're not mission-driven organizations.
602
00:38:04,644 --> 00:38:07,244
And that is fine;
they're commercial companies.
603
00:38:07,368 --> 00:38:13,068
My question is, right now, in the 21st century
when we have these other mechanisms
604
00:38:13,092 --> 00:38:16,192
that can enable the flow of science,
are they helping or hurting?
605
00:38:16,216 --> 00:38:19,216
And I would like to see them
adjust their models to be
606
00:38:19,240 --> 00:38:21,240
a little bit more helpful
rather than harmful.
607
00:38:21,564 --> 00:38:25,164
There are absolutely just criticisms
that can be leveled at Elsevier.
608
00:38:25,188 --> 00:38:27,588
There are just criticisms
that can be leveled at PLOS.
609
00:38:27,612 --> 00:38:31,612
There are just criticisms that can
be leveled at anyone and anything.
610
00:38:31,636 --> 00:38:37,936
I try not to judge the legitimacy
of a criticism based on its target.
611
00:38:37,960 --> 00:38:41,960
I try to judge the legitimacy
of a criticism based on its content.
612
00:38:44,184 --> 00:38:46,884
Oh yeah, good, I just wanted
to make sure someone said this.
613
00:38:48,108 --> 00:38:51,608
I need to talk about what kind
of company Elsevier is.
614
00:38:52,532 --> 00:38:57,832
The hostility that they sometimes get,
it's not just about the money;
615
00:38:57,856 --> 00:39:00,856
it's about the kind of company
they are, right?
616
00:39:00,880 --> 00:39:05,080
It's the actions they take often,
they're anti-collegiate.
617
00:39:05,104 --> 00:39:09,104
So, when they send take-down notices
to academia.edu,
618
00:39:09,128 --> 00:39:12,328
where academics had put up
some pdfs of their research,
619
00:39:12,352 --> 00:39:14,252
and then they were forced to
take them down.
620
00:39:14,276 --> 00:39:18,276
Obviously the lawsuit against Sci-Hub
as well in 2015.
621
00:39:18,300 --> 00:39:24,700
And, yes, both of those things were illegal,
but the academic community doesn't care;
622
00:39:24,724 --> 00:39:26,324
it doesn't really see them in that way.
623
00:39:26,648 --> 00:39:28,748
{\an1}When I got the
take-down notice, I didn’t get
624
00:39:28,849 --> 00:39:31,849
{\an1}the take-down
notice directly from Elsevier,
625
00:39:31,900 --> 00:39:35,100
{\an1}they sent it to
an official at Princeton.
626
00:39:35,096 --> 00:39:43,496
In the notice itself, it only mentions a handful
of papers by two academics at Princeton.
627
00:39:43,520 --> 00:39:48,820
Now, if you look at Princeton’s websites,
there are probably hundreds if not thousands
628
00:39:48,844 --> 00:39:52,044
of PDFs of published Elsevier papers.
629
00:39:52,068 --> 00:39:57,968
So, why did they only target those small amount
of papers and just those two researchers?
630
00:39:58,792 --> 00:40:02,592
I don’t know this for sure, but I suspect
it's because they were testing the waters.
631
00:40:02,616 --> 00:40:05,816
Nothing is preventing Elsevier
from doing a web crawl,
632
00:40:05,840 --> 00:40:10,040
finding all the published PDFs, issuing
massive take-down notices
633
00:40:10,064 --> 00:40:14,064
to everybody who is violating their copyright
agreement, but they don’t do that.
634
00:40:14,088 --> 00:40:17,088
They do that, because I think they're
trying to tread softly.
635
00:40:17,112 --> 00:40:21,112
They don't want to create
a wave of anger that will completely
636
00:40:21,136 --> 00:40:23,636
remove the source of free labor
that they depend on.
637
00:40:23,660 --> 00:40:29,460
So, critically, as it happened,
I was grateful to Princeton
638
00:40:29,484 --> 00:40:34,084
for pushing back against them, and
eventually they rescinded the take-down notice.
639
00:40:34,108 --> 00:40:39,408
And so I think that they have a sort of
taste of what it would mean
640
00:40:39,432 --> 00:40:43,932
to really go up against the body
of scientists as a whole.
641
00:40:44,356 --> 00:40:49,856
The way that Elsevier thinks as
an organization is just antithetical
642
00:40:49,880 --> 00:40:55,880
to how I think a lot of academics
think about what it is that they do.
643
00:40:55,904 --> 00:40:59,904
We sent Freedom of Information requests
to every University in the UK.
644
00:40:59,928 --> 00:41:07,128
So, in 2016, Elsevier received
42 million pounds from UK Universities.
645
00:41:07,952 --> 00:41:11,152
The next biggest publisher was
Wiley; now it's at 19 million.
646
00:41:11,176 --> 00:41:14,976
Elsevier, Wiley, Springer,
Taylor and Francis, and Sage,
647
00:41:15,000 --> 00:41:19,500
between them they take about
half of the money, and the rest is spread out.
648
00:41:20,024 --> 00:41:27,224
Elsevier in particular are a big lobbyist.
In the European Union and in Washington as well.
649
00:41:27,248 --> 00:41:30,248
They employ a lot of staff that are
basically full-time lobbyists.
650
00:41:30,272 --> 00:41:34,572
They have regular meetings
with governments around the world
651
00:41:34,596 --> 00:41:37,096
in order to get across their point of view.
652
00:41:37,320 --> 00:41:41,820
There is some notion
that publishers have
653
00:41:41,844 --> 00:41:49,244
that publishing has to be very expensive
and that publishing requires publicists
654
00:41:49,368 --> 00:41:55,268
and copy editors, PR agents,
managing editors, and so on.
655
00:41:55,792 --> 00:41:59,292
So many academic institutions,
to cope with the burdensome costs,
656
00:41:59,316 --> 00:42:02,916
have elected to buy research journals
in a big-deal format,
657
00:42:02,940 --> 00:42:04,940
as opposed to specific journal titles.
658
00:42:05,864 --> 00:42:09,364
{\an3}Each institution,
for the most part negotiates,
659
00:42:09,388 --> 00:42:11,488
{\an3}you know,
with each publisher for access
660
00:42:11,512 --> 00:42:15,212
{\an3}to generally
that publisher's entire corpus of research
661
00:42:15,312 --> 00:42:17,912
or a large portion of it in what's called
a big deal.
662
00:42:18,336 --> 00:42:19,636
{\an1}So, the subscription packages
663
00:42:19,670 --> 00:42:21,670
{\an1}which most libraries
are involved in,
664
00:42:21,760 --> 00:42:23,960
{\an1}because we can
save more money,
665
00:42:23,961 --> 00:42:26,661
{\an1}are definitely
like cable subscriptions.
666
00:42:26,684 --> 00:42:30,384
You get a lot of content; you may not like
always like all the programming.
667
00:42:30,408 --> 00:42:33,508
But if you wanna pay just
for individuals titles,
668
00:42:33,532 --> 00:42:36,532
the price goes up exponentially,
and you can’t afford it.
669
00:42:36,556 --> 00:42:40,556
So we're stuck in contracts with content
that we may or may not need
670
00:42:40,580 --> 00:42:42,780
to try to keep the price down.
671
00:42:42,804 --> 00:42:46,804
However, they can remove content
from the package without notice.
672
00:42:46,828 --> 00:42:50,628
So, if a publisher decides that
they don’t want a vendor to have
673
00:42:50,652 --> 00:42:55,352
a certain piece of content in their package
anymore, it can be removed immediately.
674
00:42:55,376 --> 00:42:57,976
That does not mean that
you can cancel the contract;
675
00:42:58,000 --> 00:43:01,300
that just means that you no longer have
access, and we have no control over that.
676
00:43:01,324 --> 00:43:07,324
Although most institutional access to current
research operates like cable subscriptions,
677
00:43:07,348 --> 00:43:10,648
we found one library that has stood
its tangible ground.
678
00:43:10,672 --> 00:43:18,372
What we had to find was a reason for us
to be valuable to the research community.
679
00:43:18,396 --> 00:43:21,396
How could we add value to this proposition,
680
00:43:21,420 --> 00:43:24,420
even though we cannot support
681
00:43:24,544 --> 00:43:26,544
{\an3}the rising cost of
electronic publications?
682
00:43:27,244 --> 00:43:29,144
{\an3}And we realized that
we could that
683
00:43:29,200 --> 00:43:31,100
{\an3}by remaining a
print-based library.
684
00:43:31,168 --> 00:43:33,468
- You can’t have a plug pulled
on by tangible journals.
685
00:43:33,492 --> 00:43:35,492
- No, we can’t. We can’t.
686
00:43:35,516 --> 00:43:40,416
And if the power fails, you know,
we still have access to content by flashlight.
687
00:43:41,040 --> 00:43:45,840
You don't need a login or an
institutional affiliation to use our library.
688
00:43:45,864 --> 00:43:50,764
We are open to the public; even though we
are privately funded, we are publicly available.
689
00:43:51,688 --> 00:43:53,688
You don’t need a login; anybody can access it.
690
00:43:53,712 --> 00:43:57,712
In the modern world, all the sudden,
print-based seems pretty forward leaning.
691
00:43:57,736 --> 00:44:03,136
Maybe half of our problem was getting roped
into digital negotiations in the first place.
692
00:44:03,660 --> 00:44:11,460
So, imagine a market for cable television
where you don't know and you can't find out
693
00:44:11,500 --> 00:44:14,900
what your next door neighbor is paying
for the same package that you have.
694
00:44:14,924 --> 00:44:17,224
- "How much are you paying for HBO?"
- "I can't tell you,
695
00:44:17,248 --> 00:44:23,048
I signed a non-disclosure with Comcast."
Libraries, universities do that all the time.
696
00:44:23,072 --> 00:44:27,572
Commercial publishers can capture
all of what's called the consumer surplus.
697
00:44:27,596 --> 00:44:32,196
They don't need to pick up a price point
that maximizes their revenue
698
00:44:32,220 --> 00:44:33,920
or profit across the entire market.
699
00:44:33,944 --> 00:44:37,944
They can negotiate that price point
with every single institution.
700
00:44:38,800 --> 00:44:41,800
And that's important, right, because it's like,
if you were buying healthcare
701
00:44:41,824 --> 00:44:47,624
and the doctor could look at your financials,
and be like, "Ah well, if you want this treatment,"
702
00:44:47,648 --> 00:44:51,648
and, you know, they know you're a millionaire,
"then it costs, you know, 500.000 dollars."
703
00:44:51,972 --> 00:44:54,572
Whereas if you are somebody who
does not have as much money,
704
00:44:54,596 --> 00:44:57,396
they can charge less,
but still make a good return.
705
00:44:57,420 --> 00:45:01,420
I feel like, in many ways, that's sort of how
the publishing market functions, right.
706
00:45:01,444 --> 00:45:04,844
The publishers can look at the endowment,
how wealthy an institution is,
707
00:45:04,868 --> 00:45:07,868
how much they've paid over,
you know, previous decades,
708
00:45:07,892 --> 00:45:10,792
and then charge right up to
the level that they think is possible.
709
00:45:11,116 --> 00:45:13,716
{\an3}There is lot of
choice in here for libraries.
710
00:45:13,717 --> 00:45:15,817
{\an3}Libraries don't have
to sign those contracts.
711
00:45:15,840 --> 00:45:20,040
And public universities, like the
University of Michigan have made
712
00:45:20,064 --> 00:45:23,664
a point of being much more transparent
about what we pay for things.
713
00:45:23,788 --> 00:45:26,588
And the Big Ten Academic Alliance,
of which we're a part,
714
00:45:26,612 --> 00:45:29,812
does a lot of transparent work
with each other.
715
00:45:30,336 --> 00:45:36,636
So, I set off to test the Big Ten's transparency.
Unfortunately, I was met with more of the same.
716
00:45:38,560 --> 00:45:42,560
I always sympathize with the librarians
who rail against Elsevier,
717
00:45:42,584 --> 00:45:47,584
but my response always to them is
"Cancel." You don’t cancel.
718
00:45:47,608 --> 00:45:50,708
"We can't cancel." You can cancel,
but you have to make that choice,
719
00:45:50,732 --> 00:45:53,632
and nobody does,
so they keep going strong.
720
00:45:54,456 --> 00:45:55,756
{\an1}Yeah, and I think
that just, you know,
721
00:45:55,757 --> 00:45:57,257
{\an1}that's all the
process of negotiation,
722
00:45:57,580 --> 00:46:00,580
{\an1}it is a traditional factor
723
00:46:00,581 --> 00:46:02,581
{\an1}of collections
work in libraries,
724
00:46:02,604 --> 00:46:08,504
and there is a lot of issues with that. But,
it’s part of a negotiation type of thing.
725
00:46:08,528 --> 00:46:11,128
And I don’t see that changing at all because...
726
00:46:11,152 --> 00:46:14,252
- Could a university, like Rutgers, tell somebody
what they paid for it?
727
00:46:14,376 --> 00:46:18,176
- No, we wouldn't. No.
- Because you’re contractually bound not to?
728
00:46:18,200 --> 00:46:22,200
- Yeah, I mean, this is the way it works. So,
again, this is not up to me to comment on
729
00:46:22,224 --> 00:46:25,224
that particular aspect,
but it is the way it works,
730
00:46:25,248 --> 00:46:29,048
and it's the way it works with all publishers.
Not the ones that you hear about.
731
00:46:29,072 --> 00:46:34,972
But it's, you know, I don’t know what
I could compare it to, but it's how it works,
732
00:46:35,096 --> 00:46:38,896
so I don’t think there is going to be
a change in that any time soon.
733
00:46:39,720 --> 00:46:43,620
You know, I understand why a library
wants to get a competitive advantage,
734
00:46:43,644 --> 00:46:48,544
wants to demonstrate that they are
getting an economic benefit,
735
00:46:48,568 --> 00:46:50,568
getting a larger group of content.
736
00:46:50,792 --> 00:46:54,792
And institutional libraries are
very different from each other,
737
00:46:54,816 --> 00:46:58,816
and some have to really demonstrate
different sorts of value,
738
00:46:58,840 --> 00:47:01,840
but it is a choice. Libraries don't have
to sign confidentiality clauses.
739
00:47:02,164 --> 00:47:07,964
It's often done in return for what
looks like a competitive advantage
740
00:47:08,588 --> 00:47:11,888
in the short term, but in the long term,
it's not a competitive advantage.
741
00:47:11,912 --> 00:47:16,112
It reduces price transparency and
increases the risk of paying more,
742
00:47:16,136 --> 00:47:18,136
as well as potentially paying less.
743
00:47:18,160 --> 00:47:22,960
It's fractally secret, right? Everything’s
a trade secret at every level.
744
00:47:22,984 --> 00:47:27,884
How much this cost, who paid what,
what the terms were. And that's on purpose.
745
00:47:28,208 --> 00:47:33,108
It prevents collective bargaining, right?
And all these things essentially maintain
746
00:47:33,132 --> 00:47:35,732
a really radically unfair market.
747
00:47:36,256 --> 00:47:39,256
There are some people who believe
that there's enough money
748
00:47:39,480 --> 00:47:43,780
right now in scholarly publishing
that it just has to be moved around;
749
00:47:43,904 --> 00:47:50,904
we don’t need to find more money. We just
need to change the way it's in the system.
750
00:47:50,928 --> 00:47:54,928
There has been a growing collective of
journals that find it advantageous
751
00:47:54,952 --> 00:47:56,952
to flip away from the for-profit paradigm.
752
00:47:57,676 --> 00:47:59,676
{\an1}So, in the case
of Lingua/Glossa,
753
00:47:59,770 --> 00:48:01,470
{\an1}what happened is that
that community
754
00:48:01,500 --> 00:48:03,500
{\an1}of researchers decided
that it was enough and then
755
00:48:03,624 --> 00:48:07,024
the editorial board all resigned.
And then started another journal
756
00:48:07,348 --> 00:48:11,148
on a non-for-profit platform,
Open Access, et cetera.
757
00:48:11,172 --> 00:48:16,072
There's not many cases of moves like that,
but what this example shows is that
758
00:48:16,096 --> 00:48:20,096
it can, indeed, work. So the entire
community, or the leaders of that community
759
00:48:20,120 --> 00:48:24,720
-because that's what basically an editorial board is-
leaders of that community
760
00:48:24,744 --> 00:48:27,744
decided to resign collectively;
everyone on the board resigned
761
00:48:27,768 --> 00:48:33,768
and then started a new journal with exactly
the same focus and, in a way,
762
00:48:33,792 --> 00:48:38,792
the exact same quality, because
what gives the quality of a journal?
763
00:48:38,816 --> 00:48:41,616
It's not the imprint of the publishers.
It's actually the editorial chief
764
00:48:41,640 --> 00:48:45,640
and the editorial board, who make
all of the scientific decisions.
765
00:48:46,264 --> 00:48:47,264
{\an1}My name is
Johan Rooryck,
766
00:48:47,265 --> 00:48:49,065
{\an1}I am a professor
of French Linguistics
767
00:48:49,088 --> 00:48:50,088
{\an1}at Leiden University.
768
00:48:50,890 --> 00:48:55,090
{\an1}And I am also
an editor of a journal.
769
00:48:55,212 --> 00:48:59,212
First, I was for 16 years the editor
of Lingua at Elsevier.
770
00:48:59,236 --> 00:49:06,536
In 2015, we decided to leave Elsevier and
to found an Open Access journal called Glossa,
771
00:49:06,560 --> 00:49:11,560
basically just the Greek translation
of the Latin name to show the continuity.
772
00:49:11,684 --> 00:49:18,384
So, the organization of Lingua was, like,
we had five editors total, so a small editorial team.
773
00:49:18,708 --> 00:49:21,208
Four associate editors;
me as the executive editor.
774
00:49:21,232 --> 00:49:24,232
And then we had an editorial board
of about 30 people.
775
00:49:24,256 --> 00:49:27,556
I had prepared all of this
two years ahead of time,
776
00:49:27,580 --> 00:49:31,580
so, I mean, Elsevier knew
nothing until we flipped.
777
00:49:31,604 --> 00:49:36,604
So, for two years, between 2013-2015, I had
already talked to a number of people
778
00:49:36,628 --> 00:49:41,428
on the editorial board, but, of course,
everything under the radar.
779
00:49:41,452 --> 00:49:44,952
And I had already talked to all the members
of my editorial team to say,
780
00:49:44,976 --> 00:49:49,876
"Look, I am busy preparing this.
If we do this, are you with me
781
00:49:49,900 --> 00:49:52,500
or are you not with me,
because I have to know.
782
00:49:52,524 --> 00:49:55,524
And because or we all do this together,
or we don't."
783
00:49:55,848 --> 00:49:59,848
And so I all looked them in the eye,
and they all said,
784
00:49:59,872 --> 00:50:02,672
yes, if you manage to do this,
we do it.
785
00:50:02,996 --> 00:50:07,996
Elsevier's editorial body at Lingua shifting
to the Open Access equivalent Glossa
786
00:50:08,020 --> 00:50:12,120
set a precedent of how a successful and
respected journal could change
787
00:50:12,144 --> 00:50:15,844
its business model and yet maintain
field-specific credibility,
788
00:50:16,168 --> 00:50:19,968
quality peer-review,
and overall impact.
789
00:50:20,192 --> 00:50:24,392
We live in a culture that really prioritizes
start-ups, innovation, and entrepreneurship.
790
00:50:24,416 --> 00:50:29,216
And the reality is that, right now, there is
literally one company that can innovate
791
00:50:29,640 --> 00:50:31,640
on the scholarly literature,
and that's Google.
792
00:50:32,064 --> 00:50:35,964
And that's, Google's great; I use
Google for everything like most people,
793
00:50:35,988 --> 00:50:41,088
but I would kind of like it if there were
a hundred companies competing for that.
794
00:50:41,112 --> 00:50:45,112
I would kind of like it if non-profits
could compete with them and try to
795
00:50:45,136 --> 00:50:49,136
create alternatives that said, "You know what,
maybe this shouldn't be a commercial product;
796
00:50:49,160 --> 00:50:50,160
it should be a utility."
797
00:50:49,984 --> 00:50:53,384
And that kind of competition
isn't possible without Open Access.
798
00:50:53,408 --> 00:50:55,708
That kind of competition is
baked into Open Access.
799
00:50:56,632 --> 00:50:59,732
And you see this from the large
commercial publishers,
800
00:50:59,756 --> 00:51:02,756
you see them understanding that
this is actually an important argument.
801
00:51:02,780 --> 00:51:08,680
They put like little drink straws in
and dribble out little bits of content
802
00:51:08,704 --> 00:51:13,304
that you can do text mining on.
We can make cars that can drive.
803
00:51:15,028 --> 00:51:17,728
You're telling me that
we cannot process the literature better?
804
00:51:17,752 --> 00:51:22,552
If a car can drive itself because of
the computational powers we have available,
805
00:51:22,576 --> 00:51:26,576
and there are more companies competing
to make self-driving cars
806
00:51:26,600 --> 00:51:29,200
then there are to process
the biomedical literature
807
00:51:29,224 --> 00:51:31,224
and help us decide
what drug to take.
808
00:51:31,248 --> 00:51:34,248
That is a direct consequence
of a lock-up of the literature.
809
00:51:34,272 --> 00:51:36,572
That is a fundamental fucking problem.
810
00:51:36,850 --> 00:51:41,750
We started advocating in Congress for taxpayer
access to taxpayer-funded research outputs.
811
00:51:41,920 --> 00:51:45,920
The most common response
we got in our initial Office visits was,
812
00:51:45,944 --> 00:51:49,044
"You mean the public doesn't
already have access to this?"
813
00:51:49,168 --> 00:51:54,568
Like, there was a disbelief among
policymakers. That this was, to them,
814
00:51:54,592 --> 00:51:57,492
the words 'no-brainer' comes to mind.
815
00:51:57,616 --> 00:51:59,616
{\an3}Researchers want
their work to be read.
816
00:52:00,140 --> 00:52:02,440
{\an3}They want to advance
discovery and innovation.
817
00:52:03,464 --> 00:52:05,664
{\an3}And while I spend
a lot of time fighting over
818
00:52:05,850 --> 00:52:08,350
{\an3}why work should
be open versus closed,
819
00:52:08,388 --> 00:52:13,688
at the end, the real case is, do we want
innovation, or do we not want innovation?
820
00:52:14,012 --> 00:52:18,812
And I think there is an obvious case
for openness to unlock innovation.
821
00:52:19,036 --> 00:52:28,036
We're seeing a lot of very inventive resistance
to this from some of the incumbent publishers.
822
00:52:28,360 --> 00:52:32,460
But I think there's also
a generational factor here.
823
00:52:32,484 --> 00:52:38,384
I think the younger generation of scientists,
of students, of academics,
824
00:52:38,408 --> 00:52:42,808
just the old model
doesn't make sense anymore.
825
00:52:43,132 --> 00:52:48,132
The public should be ashamed
for allowing a model like that to exist.
826
00:52:48,156 --> 00:52:55,356
We have, today, a set of tools to
share knowledge, including academic research,
827
00:52:55,380 --> 00:52:58,030
in a way that
we couldn't 20 years ago.
828
00:52:58,050 --> 00:53:02,050
You know, I'm seeing in our engagement
with the academic sector,
829
00:53:02,074 --> 00:53:06,174
and by that, I'm referring
specifically to our grantees,
830
00:53:06,198 --> 00:53:10,398
so we make grants to academic institutions,
and it's then the academics
831
00:53:10,422 --> 00:53:12,322
that work there that do the work.
832
00:53:12,346 --> 00:53:18,746
There's a much stronger appreciation for the
role of Open Access to the results of their research.
833
00:53:18,970 --> 00:53:22,970
You know, they see it as being
something that is a benefit to them
834
00:53:22,994 --> 00:53:27,394
to be able to have access
to information, data, and so forth
835
00:53:27,418 --> 00:53:30,818
that's being generated by others,
and so there's much more comfort
836
00:53:30,842 --> 00:53:35,642
with this notion of information and
data being open and accessible.
837
00:53:36,066 --> 00:53:38,266
{\an1}I'm never sure
of the right solution.
838
00:53:38,590 --> 00:53:40,890
{\an1}Actually, when
I talk to publishers,I think,
839
00:53:40,900 --> 00:53:43,900
{\an1} "Can I do this?
Or can't I do this?"
840
00:53:44,314 --> 00:53:49,414
You know, there are so many
questions about copyright;
841
00:53:49,438 --> 00:53:53,238
there are so many questions
about intellectual property;
842
00:53:53,262 --> 00:53:58,062
there are so many questions about
what individual authors can and can’t do
843
00:53:58,086 --> 00:54:02,086
if they decide to go and
publish with a particular journal.
844
00:54:02,110 --> 00:54:08,110
It just feels like there's so many questions
with each interaction.
845
00:54:08,334 --> 00:54:12,334
One outlet that has streamlined scholarship
is that of Sci-Hub,
846
00:54:12,358 --> 00:54:16,358
which continues to connect individuals
directly with the scholarship they need,
847
00:54:16,382 --> 00:54:19,382
when they need it, for free.
848
00:54:20,806 --> 00:54:23,606
{\an3}You know, those of us
who work in scholarly communications
849
00:54:23,707 --> 00:54:28,130
{\an3}writ large, right,
really have to look at Sci-Hub
850
00:54:28,254 --> 00:54:31,454
{\an3}as a sort of a poke
in the side that says,
851
00:54:31,554 --> 00:54:32,354
{\an3}"Do better."
852
00:54:32,378 --> 00:54:37,478
We need to look to Sci-Hub and say,
"What is it that we can be doing
853
00:54:37,502 --> 00:54:40,502
differently about the infrastructure
that we've developed
854
00:54:40,526 --> 00:54:44,926
to distribute journal articles,
to distribute scholarship?"
855
00:54:44,950 --> 00:54:48,950
Because Sci-Hub cracked the code, right?
And they did it fairly easily.
856
00:54:48,974 --> 00:54:52,874
And I think that we need to look
at what's happening with Sci-Hub,
857
00:54:52,898 --> 00:54:56,298
how it evolved, who's using it,
who's accessing it,
858
00:54:56,322 --> 00:55:01,322
and let it be a lesson to us for
what we should be doing differently.
859
00:55:46,470 --> 00:55:52,670
People use websites like Sci-Hub,
considered the pirate of academic publishing.
860
00:55:52,694 --> 00:55:55,294
It's like the Napster of academic publishing.
861
00:55:55,918 --> 00:56:00,518
I know that they've been in legal battles with
Elsevier who shut them down,
862
00:56:00,542 --> 00:56:04,542
they just open up in a different website. It's
still up and running and more popular than ever.
863
00:56:04,566 --> 00:56:09,766
So, if I had to give advice to graduate students,
or people not affiliated with institutions
864
00:56:09,790 --> 00:56:13,090
that provide access to a lot of these
journals, Sci-Hub is a great resource,
865
00:56:13,114 --> 00:56:16,714
it provides it for free. A lot of people don’t
feel guilty about using these resources
866
00:56:16,738 --> 00:56:20,738
just like when Napster came out, because
the industry at present is making too much
867
00:56:20,762 --> 00:56:24,762
off of the people who are giving
of themselves and doing great research,
868
00:56:24,786 --> 00:56:28,786
and they're being taken advantage of.
So, to take advantage of publishers
869
00:56:28,810 --> 00:56:34,210
and get articles for free that are actually
being used to educate or to develop things
870
00:56:34,234 --> 00:56:36,534
that are used for the public good,
it's a trade off that a lot of people
871
00:56:36,758 --> 00:56:38,358
are willing to make.
872
00:56:38,382 --> 00:56:40,382
And I am not completely against it.
873
00:57:06,060 --> 00:57:10,060
You know, I like those acts of what
I would consider civil disobedience.
874
00:57:10,084 --> 00:57:14,784
I think they're important.
I think they're a moment when we can,
875
00:57:14,808 --> 00:57:17,208
should have open discussion around them,
876
00:57:17,432 --> 00:57:23,132
and I fear that the openness of the discussion
is there's no nuance at all.
877
00:57:23,156 --> 00:57:27,756
It is either, as we've heard, Sci-Hub equals evil.
Like, it just has to.
878
00:57:27,780 --> 00:57:34,080
Sci-hub basically is illegal.
It is a totally criminal activity,
879
00:57:34,104 --> 00:57:40,304
and why anybody thinks it’s appropriate to
take somebody else’s intellectual property
880
00:57:40,528 --> 00:57:43,528
and just steal it basically?
881
00:57:44,552 --> 00:57:45,552
That bothers me.
882
00:57:45,576 --> 00:57:47,576
It's not only about people
who don’t have access.
883
00:57:47,600 --> 00:57:52,500
It's even being used by people in
institutions that have full access,
884
00:57:52,524 --> 00:57:55,624
because it works in a very simple
and efficient way.
885
00:57:55,648 --> 00:58:00,948
What Sci-Hub shows is the level of
frustration amongst many academics
886
00:58:00,972 --> 00:58:03,972
about the number of times
they encounter a paywall.
887
00:58:32,960 --> 00:58:36,660
I just feel like we're in the middle,
we're in this interstitial period,
888
00:58:36,684 --> 00:58:39,284
and everyone wants it to be done
as opposed to just saying,
889
00:58:39,308 --> 00:58:42,308
"You know what? None of us really
has a clue of what's going to happen
890
00:58:42,332 --> 00:58:43,832
ιn the next 15-20 years."
891
00:58:44,956 --> 00:58:49,056
All we know is that we're
at the edge of falling off the cliff
892
00:58:49,080 --> 00:58:52,080
that music fell off of with Napster.
That's what Sci-Hub shows me.
893
00:58:53,004 --> 00:58:57,004
Τhere would not be a demand for Sci-Hub
if we had been successful
894
00:58:57,028 --> 00:59:01,328
or if the publishing industry
had been successful, right?
895
00:59:01,552 --> 00:59:06,552
Arguably, what we did was to create
the conditions, right, on both sides,
896
00:59:06,576 --> 00:59:08,676
us and the publishing industry
that led to this moment.
897
00:59:08,700 --> 00:59:13,500
And, so, you know, now that you
see the potential of a system
898
00:59:13,524 --> 00:59:19,124
that lets you find any paper. I've been
using Sci-hub to collect my dad's papers, right.
899
00:59:19,148 --> 00:59:24,048
My dad died earlier this year, he was a Nobel
laureate for his work on climate change.
900
00:59:24,072 --> 00:59:28,572
I've tried to build an archive of all his papers
so I could give it to my son, right.
901
00:59:28,596 --> 00:59:32,596
Can't do it! Price would be in the
tens of thousands of dollars.
902
00:59:32,620 --> 00:59:39,620
Right. I'm not the only person who needs papers.
I'm not the only person who's doing it this way.
903
00:59:39,844 --> 00:59:43,344
I'm not trying to redistribute
these things, right.
904
00:59:43,368 --> 00:59:48,368
I am literally printing them out into a book. Then
I’m gonna just staple it for my son, right?
905
00:59:48,392 --> 00:59:52,392
So he knows his grand-dad, what his
grand-dad did, because he won’t remember it.
906
00:59:52,616 --> 00:59:56,616
That's a market failure.
That’s a tremendous market failure.
907
00:59:57,840 --> 00:59:59,540
Priorities are going to change.
908
00:59:59,564 --> 01:00:06,564
And I believe that Elsevier is a business full
of smart people, who want discovery to happen,
909
01:00:06,588 --> 01:00:10,588
but don’t have a better idea on
how to make money in the middle.
910
01:00:10,612 --> 01:00:16,612
And, unfortunately for them, the internet
is the story of breaking down gatekeepers.
911
01:00:17,036 --> 01:00:26,836
They're the gatekeeper, standing between,
in some cases, research and discovery.
912
01:01:00,900 --> 01:01:07,400
If someone's research is behind a paywall,
and it stops me from doing research
913
01:01:07,424 --> 01:01:11,924
in that field in my lifetime, how many
more lifetimes do we have to wait
914
01:01:11,948 --> 01:01:14,948
for somebody else to be able to
take that evolutionary step?
915
01:01:14,972 --> 01:01:20,972
Sometimes, innovation is the right person
in the right place at the right time,
916
01:01:20,996 --> 01:01:25,196
and all a paywall does is ensure that it's
a lot less likely that the right person
917
01:01:25,220 --> 01:01:29,220
is going to be in the right place at
the right time to get something done.
918
01:02:18,140 --> 01:02:22,140
Transcript: Elena Milova, Joshua Conway,
anonymous lifespan.io member
919
01:02:22,164 --> 01:02:25,164
Synchronization: Giannis Tsakonas