Editorial Snapshot: A pull on the reins of open research: Big Publishing strikes back

– K.R., Editor

Modern advances in technology have enabled researchers to share ideas faster than ever before. However, the increasing emergence of websites that offer quick and easy sharing of data has become a growing concern for players in the academic publishing industry who see these developments as a threat to their lucrative business model.

Websites such as ResearchGate have become an important tool for scientists and facilitate a faster and more efficient exchange of ideas between scientists than previous methods which involved written correspondence. However, these websites have also been criticized for turning a blind eye to rampant file sharing, and ResearchGate has recently come under fire for allowing easy access to copyrighted science articles. In September, the International Association of Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM) in Oxford, U.K., and The Hague, the Netherlands expressed concern to the website about the increasing volume of readily accessible science that changes hands without payment. The group, which represents over 140 academic publishers, has proposed that the site enable an automated system to determine whether an article can legally be shared with another user (i.e., allow coauthors to readily share their own articles but prevent widespread sharing of copyrighted material). This measure would no doubt prove unpopular among ResearchGate’s membership.

Researchers will no doubt be familiar with the long-running argument over who pays for quality science. Proponents of academic article sharing websites have often pointed out that the publishing industry is in fact hurting science in the interest of generating excessive profits, and that discontent among researchers and science enthusiasts has been brewing for years. On the surface, it would seem that publishers would prefer dealing with approachable websites like ResearchGate than pirate sites such as Sci-Hub whose mission is to blatantly subvert academic publishers. Litigation by publishers has seen Sci-Hub being shut down and fined, but the file-sharing site has proven resilient. Although publishers would relish blocking public access to the site entirely, such a move would incense freedom of information groups who have fought similar actions in America and Europe. Additionally, for sites that do end up being blocked, workarounds by proxies or VPNs are usually available within a short period of time.

In the face of increasing support for research sharing websites, some publishers have made concessions. A recent collaboration between the American Geophysical Union and Wiley has seen the development of a new preprint server, ESSOAr, which will enable users to share research before the lengthy peer review stage. Traditionally, big publishers have frowned upon authors using pre-print websites to share data before publication and often refuse to publish articles shared on these websites. Such attempts at a dialogue between proponents and opponents of open research may eventually show promise. However, as long as hard-line publishers oppose even modest endeavors made by science sharing websites, the debate surrounding copyright of academic articles will continue.

Click here for the Japanese version.