Dear HIFA colleagues,
Indi (on behalf of the HIFA Open Access working group) asks:
"Q4: How would YOU design an OA system that retains the benefits -- and fixes the problems! -- of the current OA system?"
I have commented on the Gates Foundation's new open acess policy and their decision to stop funding APCs:
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-80-gates-foundation-open-ac...
You responded: "My personal opinion is indeed that APCs should be covered by funders, but it is very challenging for us as researchers to plan an accurate line-item in grants for APC fees."
I suggested it is not so challenging to do this. Of all that research funders have to consider, the budget line for payment of APC is straightforward, particularly if it is capped by the funder (and different funders may have different caps).
I have provided further thoughts on Q4 here:
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-84-introducing-q4-how-would...
In particular, I state:
"I am concerned about the decision by the Gates Foundation to stop funding APCs. They say that 'By discontinuing to support Open Access fees, we can work to address inequities in current publishing models and reinvest the funds elsewhere'. Instead they are mandating researchers to publish preprints. I am not convinced by their arguments and I believe that it would be a retrograde step for funders to stop paying APCs. APCs represent a tiny fraction of the total costs of research, and the journal publishing process is an indispensable part of knowledge translation. I suggest that such action by Gates and others will lead to fragmentation of research outputs, out-of-pocket costs to researchers, weakening of the overall global evidence ecosystem, reduced effectiveness of knowledge translation and adverse health outcomes. For me, it makes much more sense for research funders to collaborate with journals rather than exclude them. Exorbitant APCs? Yes indeed, this is the case with some of the top journals, but the way forward is to negotiate, if necessary through capping of the APC budget line."
So how can we design a better system? I would suggest an evolution in the current system rather than a revolution, retaining the benefits and fixing the problems. It seems to me that the biggest problem is unaffordable APCs. I look forward to hear about other problems that need to be addressed.
I would engage rather than exclude journal publishers. Not to do so is to throw away something important just to get rid of something we don't like (unaffordable APCs).
For me, a better system would be one that is similar to what we already have, but where funders accept the responsibility for paying APCs as (a very small) part of the research budget. We would look at different approaches to ensure that the cost of APCs reflects the actual cost of article processing. The simplest way to do this would be to assess these costs and cap the APC budget line accordingly. The cap would be decided (and made public) by the funder, and would take into account, for example, the cost of the overall research proposal.
There are lots of other ways in which the publication of health research can evolve, including adoption of artifical intelligence (which should further reduce APCs).
Apart from the Gates Foundation (for which we await a proponent to explain the benefits), there are many other perspectives on the future of open access.
I am not an expert in this field and I really look forward to hear what others think.
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