Dutch universities dig in for long fight over open access

Institutions ‘unbending’ on fee-free demand as talks with Elsevier resume

January 8, 2015

Dutch universities have vowed not to soften their groundbreaking demands for publishers to permit all papers published by their academics to be made open access for no extra charge.

In January last year, Sander Dekker, the Dutch minister for education, culture and science, decreed that 60 per cent of Dutch research articles must be open access by 2019 and 100 per cent by 2024. Dutch university presidents responded by agreeing to make their renewal of subscription deals dependent on publishers taking steps to realise this goal.

Gerard Meijer, president of Radboud University and one of the lead negotiators for the Dutch universities, said that in addition to preserving access to their subscription journals, the universities wanted publishers to permit all future articles whose corresponding author has a Dutch affiliation to be published on an open access basis for no extra charge. He said universities were also unwilling to tolerate any more above-inflation price rises.

A deal that meets the universities’ requirements was recently made with Springer, the world’s second-largest science journal publisher. Professor Meijer said this showed that the transition to a fully open access business model could be made by traditional publishers.

Discussions have also begun with Wiley, Sage and Oxford University Press. But in November, the Association of Universities in the Netherlands, known by the acronym VSNU, revealed that negotiations with Elsevier, the world’s largest science journal publisher, had broken down after the Amsterdam-based firm tabled an offer that “totally fails to address” the universities’ demands.

On 16 December, the VSNU announced that negotiations had resumed after Elsevier made another offer. It also said that Dutch universities’ current big deal with the publisher, which was due to expire on 1 January, would automatically be extended by one year, temporarily maintaining Dutch universities’ access to the publisher’s suite of 2,200 journals, which include Cell and The Lancet.

Research Libraries UK was involved in a four-month stand-off with Elsevier in 2011 over the cost of its big deals. The consortium of 34 major research libraries demanded “significant real-terms price reductions”, thought to be in the region of 15 per cent, but – as often occurs – a compromise was eventually reached.

However, Professor Meijer insisted that Dutch universities were determined not to bend.

“We are willing to pay publishers for the work they do, but Elsevier’s profit margin is approaching 40 per cent, and universities have to do the [editing] work and pay for it. We aren’t going to accept it any longer. I think from the fact that Elsevier is not willing to move much, they simply still don’t believe it. Well, they got us wrong,” he said.

Elsevier declined to comment.

That the Dutch government has bucked international trends and followed the UK’s lead in preferring journal-based gold open access over repository-based green open access – which publishers fear could prompt journal cancellations – has been attributed to Elsevier’s lobbying power in its home country.

Professor Meijer admitted that while Mr Dekker was a strong advocate of open access, Elsevier “goes to the Ministry of Economic Affairs and tells them they are one of the biggest taxpayers in the Netherlands”.

“But I am a scientist, and I am going to fight for the scientists,” he added.

paul.jump@tesglobal.com

Times Higher Education free 30-day trial

登录 或者 注册 以便阅读全文。

请先注册再进行下一步

获得一个月的无限制地在线阅读网站内容。只需注册并完成您的职业简介.

注册是免费的,而且非常简单。一旦成功注册,您可以每个月免费阅读3篇文章。:

  • 获得编辑推荐文章
  • 率先获得泰晤士高等教育世界大学排名相关的新闻
  • 获得职位推荐、筛选工作和保存工作搜索结果
  • 参与读者讨论和公布评论
注册

Reader's comments (2)

Would be a lot better if the Netherlands adopted a policy requiring Dutch researchers to make their published research OA rather than fussing about publishing costs and the costs of OA publishing. http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/1099-.html? Harnad, S (2014) The only way to make inflated journal subscriptions unsustainable: Mandate Green Open Access. LSE Impact of Social Sciences Blog 4/28 http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2014/04/28/inflated-subscriptions-unsustainable-harnad/
Interesting comment @Stevan. So far, mandatory green is just more paper-work. People don't want a mess of word documents with "insert here" and figures in separate files, R in another file, and data somewhere else. And researchers don't want yet more e-mails saying that their work will not be counted (not even counted...) if they take 91 days to upload all of these files. They want the published paper to cite, and quote from. Mandatory green confuses access with intellectual contribution. It also creates a university mandatory repository administration workforce. And doesn't give readers to the published form, supplementary material, code, and inline figures to read, quote, cite, and replicate. This is a hard problem. The likely long term solution is the opposite of mandated-green: Within 5-10 years 90% of publishers will be 100% CCC-open access. As the number of open papers rises 1000-fold, the per-paper charges will drop to around $200: sustainable, and not a lot different from the total publishing cost today. True open access will then be a net-zero or better cost, and give the world access to knowledge.

欢迎反馈

Log in or register to post comments

评论最多

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October