Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-91-q4-how-would-you-design-...
Dear Rabia,
Thank you for your thoughts on designing an Open Access system.
You suggest a focus on equity, usability, and sustainability. I agree. More specifically, I would argue a focus on the extent to which an OA model contributes to strengthen the global evidence ecosystem and thereby increases the availability and use of reliable healthcare information.
You invite us to consider to 'Promote transparent APC capping and collective negotiations between funders and publishers to prevent cost escalation'. Again I agree and several HIFA members have now expressed support for this, which is one of the principles of Plan S. Research funders should take responsibility for paying APCs, but these should be capped to reflect actual costs.
As Uzodinma Adirieje said yesterday:
'When a research project funder like Bill Gates Foundation decides to stop paying Article Processing Charges (APCs), it can significantly affect the visibility, accessibility, utilization, and impact of funded research. Without APC support, researchers may not be able to publish in open-access journals, with the risk of limiting global access to their findings — especially in low- and middle-income regions.'
Inflated APCs are already a major barrier. If researchers are not allowed to include reasonable APC costs in their research proposals, this will make publication in OA journals impossible.
By excluding support for researchers to publish in OA journals, funders are weakening the global evidence ecosystem and reducing the availability and use of reliable healthcare information. They are doing the opposite of their own mission statements.
Rabia, you also mention 'global or regional APC funds supported by governments and donors'. Uzodinma has suggested similar, saying this would be 'supported by governments, philanthropic foundations, and international health organizations, covering APCs for researchers without institutional backing'.
I'm not sure about this. Why would funders be ready to give to a central fund when they are not ready to support APC costs of their own grantees?
Again, I would encourage funders to take direct responsibility to support dissemination of their own funded research projects, with capped APC budget lines as recommended by Plan S (which the Gates Foundation is, ironically, one of the first signatories).
APC waivers for LMICs are welcome, but individual journal policies are haphazard and confusing. Also, are likely to perversely encourage funders not to pay for a dissemination budget line on the basis that the authors 'should be able to secure an APC waiver'. I believe it would be much better and simpler for funders to take responsibility for paying capped APC costs for all research projects, whether they are HIC, LMIC or international. A further point is that waiver policies by definition categorise LMIC researchers as being unable to pay the APC, which in itself is inequitable.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org