[MGSA-L] Paywall: The business of scholarship review -- analysis of a scandal

[June Samaras]

A film review from _New Scientist_,  24 October 2018.
The one-hour film is about academic publishing in general, not just in the
realm of science...  It may  be viewed online (and not behind a paywall) at

https[colon slash slash]paywallthemovie[dot]com

or possibly through the turgid and allegedly 'safe' link that follows

https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpaywallthemovie.com%2F&data=02%7C01%7CCLASSICS-L%40lsv.uky.edu%7C75fccc025a484f133ee108d641b028b4%7C2b30530b69b64457b818481cb53d42ae%7C0%7C0%7C636768622194561715&sdata=1DUgYU9xeKH0RaLZgGBe2u6Z5eBz%2FlWA5FTyq7kdvBo%3D&reserved=0

RH

-----

*Paywall: The business of scholarship review -- analysis of a scandal*

by Graham Lawton

Two minutes into this riveting documentary, there's a moment of pure
cinematic genius. Just as the story is getting into its stride, THUD --
down comes a paywall and a voice says: "We are sorry, you do not have the
credentials to access this documentary. Please see payment options below."

You're going to have to shell out $39.95 to keep watching. But of course,
you don't. The paywall is fake and after a few agonising seconds the film
rolls on. But its emotional impact is real -- a mixture of "WTF?" and "How
dare they!"

This, of course, is precisely what filmmaker Jason Schmitt wants you to
feel -- and what many academics feel on a daily basis as they butt up
against paywalls demanding money to read the latest research in their
field. This research is likely to have been paid for by you and me, but it
has somehow been locked out of reach behind a barrier.

Out of reach

Exactly how this happens is the stuff of Paywall: The business of
publishing — unpromising material for an hour-long documentary unexpectedly
spun into gold as you are carried along by a rising tide of righteous anger
and astonishment that this could ever be allowed to happen, let alone
persist. By the end you'll be convinced that scholarly publishing is one of
the greatest con tricks ever perpetrated.

Academic publishing may seem like a gentle, scholarly activity, but it's
worth billions. Publishers largely make money by charging people to read
their journals, either by subscribing to them or by paying fees to get past
a paywall. Neither comes cheap.

Schmitt's example is a journal published by Elsevier called Biomaterials, a
subscription to which costs an average of $10,702. Individual paywalled
articles on Elsevier's Science Direct portal generally cost $39.95.

Driving fat profits

These high prices drive fat profit margins -- around 37 per cent in
Elsevier's case -- which is nice for the shareholders and the publishing
industry. These margins are built on publicly-funded research and a lot of
free scientific labour. The research in the journals is largely funded by
taxpayers. The work of doing the research, writing the paper,
peer-reviewing it and editing the journal is done by taxpayer-funded
scientists. Yet somehow the result -- a research paper -- ends up being the
intellectual property of the publisher.

To add insult to injury, subscriptions and tolls are largely paid by
university libraries -- funded by the taxpayer. And it is not as if there's
any competition in the market: to do their jobs properly, scientists need
access to all the journals. The publishers thus have a licence to print
money.

Scientists are trapped. To advance their careers they must publish or
perish, preferably in high-impact journals -- most of which are run on the
toll-access model.

Deeper and deeper

As the movie delves deeper and deeper into the business of toll-access
publishing, the more egregious it seems. For no reason other than
price-gouging, journal costs have been rising faster than the rate of
inflation for years. Publishers often sell libraries discounted "bundles"
of subscriptions, but can remove content without notice.

And they often ask institutions to sign a non-disclosure agreement about
the prices they pay, ostensibly in return for a discount, with the result
that nobody knows what everybody else is paying and collective bargaining
is impossible. As a result, lots of scientists (especially in low-income
and developing countries but even in richer parts of the world) cannot get
access to the research they need while the publishers get rich.

Another way

There is an alternative model, open access, but despite 20 years of
insurgency it has failed to smash the system. Exactly why is another theme
explored in the movie, and with impeccable timing.

In September, a coalition of 13 European research bodies which collectively
distribute €18 billion annually across Europe unveiled a radical plan to
promote open access. From 2020, any research funded by these bodies --
which include two of the biggest beasts of European funding, UK Research
and Innovation and the French National Research Agency -- must be published
in an open access journal.

That means it will be instantly available to everyone for free, no
subscriptions or paywalls involved.

This story is told by an impressive range of interviewees from academia,
libraries, the publishing industry, and, ultimately, the insurgents who are
fighting back. Amazingly, considering that the movie consists mainly of
talking heads filmed in sterile university or corporate environments, the
passion and eloquence of the interviewees plus punchy editing means it
never gets tedious.

Meet the Pirate Queen

It finishes with a real bang: an interview with Alexandra Elbakyan, the so
called "pirate queen" of scientific publishing. She runs a website called
Sci Hub which makes around 70 million paywalled research papers freely and
easily available.

Elbakyan has been sued by Elsevier and others and is a fugitive from
justice so securing an interview with her was a real coup. She duly
delivers the coup de grace. When Schmitt asks her opinion of Elsevier --
the most pirated publisher on her site -- she archly says: "I like their
slogan ‘making uncommon knowledge common' very much, but as far as I can
tell Elsevier has not mastered this job well. Sci-Hub is helping them to
fulfil their mission." This brings the house down at screenings, Schmitt
tells me.

If I have any criticism of the movie, it is that it fails to adequately
capture the publishers' side of the story -- if only to let them hang
themselves. It also focuses too hard on one company, Elsevier. Schmitt says
he contacted Elsevier several times but it declined to take part.

But Elsevier is not the be all and end all of the toll publishing industry.
I understand why Schmitt makes it the villain of the piece, but doing so
unfairly demonises one company while letting others off the hook.
For balance, you need to be aware that even Elsevier participates in
open-access publishing to some small degree, and that the publishing
industry generally accepts that there is a problem and knows it needs to
change -- if only to dodge the outrage generated by this informative,
entertaining and possibly game-changing documentary.

===========================
-
June Samaras
2020 Old Station Rd
Streetsville,Ontario
Canada L5M 2V1
Tel : 905-542-1877
E-mail : june.samaras at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://maillists.uci.edu/pipermail/mgsa-l/attachments/20181103/83c8025d/attachment.html>