Challenges For Chemists, Chemistry, and ACS
This is my first time here and was wondering how often posts are made?
Combined challenges of soaring library costs and "open access" to literature.
There are two trends in scientific publishing that are coming together to create problems that should concern chemists and ACS. Because chemists play a crucial role in producing these research publications, they can have an enormous influence on the future of scientific publications--if they assert themselves.
One trend is the very high and rapidly increasing prices of commercial science journals that are threatening the ability of university and industry libraries to maintain their access to the scientific literature. Libraries nationwide are canceling subscriptions to less used journals, only to see their costs continue to rise much faster than inflation. Although ACS journals provide very high quality at a reasonable cost, commercial publishers such as Elsevier charge much higher prices for what, in some cases, are lower quality journals. Let me give two examples from my research area: ACS's Organometallics cost libraries $1,905 in 2002 for 5,990 pages ($0.32 per page) and had about 26,000 citations and an impact factor of 3.215; in contrast, Elsevier's Journal of Organometallic Chemistry cost $9,210 in 2002 for 6,517 pages ($1.41 per page) and had about 21,000 citations and a lower impact factor of 1.901. ACS's new Organic Letters cost libraries $2,609 in 2002 for 4,743 pages ($0.55 per page) and had about 11,000 citations and an impact factor of 3.715; in contrast, Elsevier's established Tetrahedron Letters cost $9,624 in 2002 for 9,726 pages ($0.99 per page) and had about 62,000 citations and a lower impact factor of 2.357.
At least partially in response to the high cost of commercial journals, a second trend calling for "open access" publishing has developed. It calls for Internet publishing to make journals free for all to read. The noble goal of making scientific information available to a much wider audience has been championed by many, including United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan and National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts. The Public Library of Science, a project championed by former National Institutes of Health chief Harold E. Varmus, published its first open-access journal, PLoS Biology, in October 2003. This peer-reviewed journal is supported by $1,500 author fees and by a $9 million grant from the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation. Many have questioned the viability of this business model and worry about who will maintain journal archives and for how long.
Rep. Martin O. Sabo (D-Minn.) has proposed legislation that would require free access to publication of federally supported research. This would effectively remove copyright protection for ACS and other scientific journals. It would bias the publishing system toward the open-access model and would fatally damage publications of scientific societies. ACS has taken a strong position against the Sabo bill because the legislation would destroy ACS's ability to fulfill its mission of providing high-quality chemical publications at a reasonable cost.
I think that the solution to soaring library costs does not lie with open-access publishing but rather with electronic journals from scientific societies that are made available at reasonable costs. The solution will also require scientists to exert pressure on commercial publishers. The time has come for chemists who are editors or editorial board members of commercial journals to use their considerable influence to strongly urge publishers to greatly reduce their prices. I believe it is also time for chemists to consider whether they will continue to support exorbitantly priced commercial journals by serving as editors, editorial board members, authors, and referees!
Posted by Tom on January 07, 2004 | TrackBack (0)
