Post Brussels : Elsevier and Australian STM debate 'sprouts'

["Colin Steele" <Colin.Steele@anu.edu.au>]

'EPS Insights' posted a cogent piece on 22 February 'Reed 
Elsevier: Looking Past Harcourt' by Kate Worlock. She notes inter 
alia, that:

"Reed Elsevier's total revenues rose 6% at constant currencies to 
UKP 5,398 million, with adjusted profit up 9% to UKP 1,210 
million, giving an adjusted operating margin of 22.4%... 
Elsevier, LexisNexis and Reed Business all utilise subscription 
models strongly and therefore have much more predictable 
financial cycles than Harcourt, where the business is strongly 
affected by adoption cycles and curriculum changes.  Elsevier, 
for example, performed particularly strongly in subscription 
terms, reporting journal renewal rates of 97%.  E-only contracts 
now account for more than 45% of Elsevier's journal subscription 
revenues... Reed Elsevier post-Harcourt will have a far stronger 
focus on subscription-based products around which the group 
intends to place longer-term contracts where possible."

As financial analysts have often mentioned, eg at Fiesole Oxford 
2003, the serials business is an increasingly lucrative one for 
the big players. In how many other business moreover does the 
customer pay for the product a year or more in advance of its 
receipt, as libraries do in serial subscriptions?

In the light of the comments after the Brussels Declaration on 
STM Publishing, readers of the list might be interested in the 
lengthy seven page submission which Elsevier made in late 
December to the Australian Productivity Commission's draft report 
'Public Support for Science and Innovation'. 
(http://www.pc.gov.au/study/science/subs/subdr157.pdf)

Some of the comments there will stimulate further debate but 
herewith some reflections in relation to some earlier postings on 
this list.

On the first page, Elsevier say that they have 1,400 Australian 
editors and editorial board members. A number of us in Australia 
have yet to find any form of substantial remuneration to these 
editors and board members, either in terms of salary or office 
space, highlighting the point that much unpaid academic work goes 
into the productions of journals in addition to the institutional 
and taxpayer funded components of the original research, see 
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485.

This is particularly relevant also in the context of peer review, 
which seems to be increasingly used by publishers as a dramatic 
'sine qua non' bargaining chip. Elsevier comments that a research 
council mandate "could result in a significant loss of the 
investment in peer review and could lead to break downs in this 
intricate and vital system" and "the possible reduction in the 
number of peer reviewed journals".

Australian authors whom they claim would be disadvantaged have a 
greater ability to reach a global market in most disciplines 
through the variety of Open Access options currently available.

The statement that "STM publishing is a finely balanced, highly 
balanced system that works well" is one that is currently being 
vigorously debated but the current system, from 'The Big Deal' 
onwards, clearly benefits the major publishers to the detriment 
of learned societies, smaller publishers, particularly those in 
the Social Sciences and Humanities. The recent debate in Norway 
on the Blackwell Big Deal 'collapse' reflects these tensions.

No-one disputes that publishers "need to recoup the significant 
investments that they make", for example in platforms, products 
like Scopus, etc. The question is what is the nature of the 
profits on top of those investment returns in terms of the 
potential of the digital Open Access repository environment in 
social and economic benefits.

Elsevier's comment to the Productivity Commission that a "network 
of repositories could lead to a reduction in quality assurance 
levels" misunderstands the checks and balances that many 
repositories maintain between categories of material, such as 
California eScholarship. The Elsevier page 3 criticisms of 
repositories is selective, particularly in the context of access. 
Articles deposited in the ANU E-Prints, like those of QUT, have 
resulted in significant Open Access penetration of the global 
academic community in the Social Sciences and Humanities, which 
would not have been achieved by conventional publishers in those 
disciplines. Clearly programmes of scholarly communication, from 
the top downwards, need to be instituted with academic 
researchers on campuses to cover such issues as the benefits of 
repositories, copyright and licensing, research quality and 
impact factors, etc.

The Australian Department of Education, Science and Training 
(DEST) Report to the Productivity Commission, in contrast to 
Elsevier, reaffirms "the Accessibility Framework, currently being 
developed by DEST" makes "it possible for research conducted in 
Australian higher education providers to be discoverable, 
accessible and shareable. DEST considers that the system-wide use 
of repositories beginning with the RQF will lead to significant 
benefits for Australia". The Australian Government is providing 
$25.5 (AUS) million through the Australian Scheme for Higher 
Education Repositories (ASHER) over three years to assist with 
the establishment of digital repositories in Australian 
universities.

To conclude, Professor Brian Fitzgerald, Professor of Law at 
Queensland University of Technology, in his article, 'Building 
Blocks for the Australian Accessibility Framework', (Campus 
Review, 30 January) notes "the steps by the Australian Research 
Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council to 
provide further foundation to the Australian Accessibility 
Framework display important institutional leadership for the 
extremely worthy endeavour of promoting broader scale access to 
knowledge for social and economic reasons... built on strategic 
copyright management practices and effective engagement with the 
established publishing industry". The debate clearly continues in 
Australia, with the Productivity Commission handing down its 
final report in early March.

Colin Steele
Emeritus Fellow
The Australian National University
Canberra  ACT 0200
Australia
Email: colin.steele@anu.edu.au

University Librarian, Australian National University (1980-2002)
and Director Scholarly Information Strategies (2002-2003)