Pay or not to pay?

In early autumn 2018, the documentary “Paywall. The Business of Scholarship” (“Plati. Scientific Business”), which can be watched online [1] was released on the screens. This is a cut from an interview with two dozen researchers and libraries from around the world, telling how they assess the influence of major publishers - primarily Elsevier - on the development of science.

Why is this topic interesting for our country? When during the discussions it comes to the access of Russian organizations to scientific publications, quite often it all starts and ends with the phrase "But in Western universities there is access to everything." Yes, large foreign universities and research centers pay for a package subscription, spending significant amounts. In this case, the package may not cover the entire spectrum of scientific areas. The payment system is opaque (it is not known how much neighboring university pays for the same subscription). With an increase in the number of articles and magazines with open access, more and more questions arise about the justice of the existing system.

Publishers Elsevier, Wiley, Springer and others boast of the rate of profit, which many commercial companies did not dream of. In this regard, as a rule, data on Elsevier. I will also give them: in 2017, Elsevier revenue amounted to 2,284 million pounds, and net profit - 913 million pounds (37%). Is it a lot or a little? In order not to transfer from one currency to another, I use the following comparison: Elsevier net profit is about 3% of all British expenses for R&D.

Such a high profit is accumulated by the company, of course, not only in the UK, but as a result of activities around the world. And for a large part, this money is a product for a product created by thousands of scientists and scientific organizations around the world financed at the expense of government spending. At the same time, taxpayers of these countries do not have free access to the results of the work of scientists: the base is paid. In fact, Elsevier uses a model similar to YouTube-users are provided with an online platform, an algorithm for ranking and content assessment. And here and here all the content is made by users, but there are small differences: YouTube shares the earned with those who do this content, Elsevier - no. Also on YouTube, the Content creator himself decides whether he will be in the public domain or not, while Elsevier will be fraught with financial costs (you have to pay for Open Access).

What does Open Access have to do with it? In the EU countries there is a trend to increase the share of articles in the public domain, that is, those that everyone can read from their home computer. This happens gradually, such a condition increasingly fits into grant obligations (for example, in 2015, the German Society of Fraunhofer published 20% of all its articles in the public domain, the combination of the Helmholtz - almost 40%). These are often publications in magazines from the pool of the same publishers. Elsevier has 15% of all published articles - Open Access.

It may seem that justice triumphs: so many articles are open to everyone! But it's too early to rejoice. It seems that the taxpayer pays them to publishes twice: the first time - when scientists publish an article (the Open Access article costs from 150 to 5,000 dollars. [2] ), the second - when universities and research institutes are signed by Elsevier magazines, because the share of the publishers published in the open ex percommunication of the articles is growing. I am writing “like” because Elsevier and other publishers do not disclose information about how much a subscription is for a particular university or institute. Also, the provisions on non -disclosure of information are inscribed in the service agreements, that is, universities do not have the right to talk about the cost of subscription to third parties.

To change the current situation, the scientific community takes steps that can be divided into disobedience (radical and less radical) and attempts to legally change the current system or get out of it.

Radical disobedience is demonstrated by the Sci-Hub project, where about 80% of all scientific publications of paid bases are represented. This project of Alexandra Elbakyan, perhaps, is the most significant contribution of the post -Soviet countries to the world discussion about the functioning of the scientific sector. Over the past year, there were about 150 million downloads from all corners of the world with SCI-HUB, while the leaders have exactly those countries in which many educational institutions and research institutes have issued paid access to scientific journals.

However, law-abiding Western universities adhere to disobedience strategies: on the pages of scientists and teachers, the full versions of their work can be found, which actually should not apply to open. Elsevier’s indecisive attempts were unsuccessful, since the publishing house with free people who write for him can negatively affect business models.

About attempts to change the system, being in the legal field, has already been briefly mentioned above. This is the transition to Open Access, and negotiations with the publishers that are held in a number of countries. So, for the past few years, Germany has been crashing with Elsevier (the so -called Deal project [3] ): two hundred educational institutions did not resume the subscription in 2016 and 2017. Their goal is to conclude a collective agreement with Elsevier, taking into account the fee for Open Access, as well as make the board more transparent. Negotiations are delayed, but so far a new agreement has not been reached, Elsevier does not turn off German organizations from his system. Other legal steps for changing the system are still single: employees of some editions are collectively quit from Elsevier magazines and open similar magazines in the public domain.

If with the existing system of paid subscription to scientific publications everything is so bad, then why is the status quo scientific publishers remain? The fact is that the institute of assessing the effectiveness of scientific works, scientists, educational institutions and research institutes (Scopus just like Elsevier belongs to the Relx Group). The modern scientific world cannot function without magazine ratings, Hirsch index, etc. Just think on what basis to allow researchers to apply to RNF grants? By what criterion to determine the success of scientific activity? On what basis to allocate financing to universities and institutions? What lines in the resume look at the resume when hiring a scientist or teacher?

However, is such an assessment institution that costs taxpayers such a significant money and brings 37% of net profit per year for those who do not create any value added and at the same time prevents scientific communication? Let me remind you that the subscriptions of the road not only for Russian universities, but also for scientific and educational institutions around the world. And if the question of whether to be free to access publications on archeology does not seem the most important, then in the field of medicine, when it comes to saving the life and health of people, about the possibility of doctors - adherents of evidence -based medicine - to get acquainted with the latest scientific results, it seems key.

In my opinion, if the film “Paywall. The Business of Scholarship” will push a discussion on this issue in Russia or at least help a little more critical to look at the institutional structure of the functioning of science that we actively borrowed, it will be good. After all, as experience shows, when borrowing institutions in developed countries, these copied institutions often turn out to be ineffective.

This is exactly what happened when borrowing a system for assessing the effectiveness of the scientific sector based on the level of citation in other countries recognized in other countries, which are inextricably linked with foreign publishers. Competitions that access to the articles of Elsevier and other publishers are too expensive, seem not very relevant in Russia, because there is Sci-Hub and, judging by the statistics of downloads, it is in high esteem in our country and no one is particularly conceived about the ethics of piracy. That is, we borrowed the institute, but do not completely agree with it.

The borrowing of this institute gave rise to another problem with us, which is not in such a scale in many other countries - “paid publications”. We are not talking about the payment for the publication of Open Access or for access to publications that scientists interviewed in the film complain about the editors of third -rate magazines that publish without reviewing the article. They resort to the services of such magazines only in order to fulfill the “shaft plan” - an effective contract - and increase the publication activity of organizations.

How much money is washed from the scientific sector in this way is an open question, however, as well as the question of the effectiveness of publications for the sake of reporting for the development of science and improving the quality of life. Therefore, as it should be written in scientific articles, "all this requires further research and discussion." Or, as they say on YouTube, “Stay Tuned”.

Natalia Toganova,
cand. Econ. Sciences, ImoMo RAS

The editors of the TRV-hunger will be glad to publish interesting opinions of readers on the topic proposed by the author

1. PaywallThemovie.com
2. Elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/j.custom97.pdf
3. Projekt-deal.de/about-deal/