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