1. TOWARDS A NEW FUTURE FOR
SCHOLARLY JOURNALS
Frederick Friend
JISC Scholarly Communication Consultant
Honorary Director Scholarly Communication UCL
f.friend@ucl.ac.uk
Joint Information Systems Committee

2. BASIC ASSUMPTION: MORE CHANGES ARE STILL TO COME
BUT THERE IS A GOOD FUTURE FOR SCHOLARLY JOURNALS
 Most stakeholders now accept that we have begun a process of change in
scholarly publishing
 The initial drivers for change were technological (business models initially seen
as continuing from paper to electronic) but technological changes are now seen
as providing opportunities for change throughout the research life-cycle
 Some stakeholders see the changes as a threat to scholarly journals
 Other stakeholders see the changes as opportunities to provide more efficient
and cost-effective dissemination of publicly-funded research
 Most stakeholder organisations (institutions, funding agencies and publishers)
want change to support rather than weaken journal publishing
 They differ in their motives and in their view of desirable outcomes
 Whose view of the future will prevail?
Joint Information Systems Committee

3. OBJECTIVES ON WHICH MOST STAKEHOLDERS AGREE –
AND WHERE THEY DISAGREE
 Maintaining a high level of quality in research dissemination. Most
stakeholders agree on the importance of peer review but some put
emphasis upon the quality of a journal while others emphasise the
quality of the article.
 Matching the volume of publication to the volume of research. Most
stakeholders wish to see publication opportunities for all serious
research but differ on how much can be paid for traditional publication
and therefore whether alternative publishing models should be
supported.
 Enabling future research to be published. Most stakeholders want to see
viable business models but differ on how to achieve future viability.
 Enabling high and effective use of published research. Most
stakeholders look for usage and impact statistics but differ on their
reasons for promoting particular metrics.
Joint Information Systems Committee

4. INFORMING CHOICE: THE WORK OF JISC, THE UK JOINT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMITTEE (1)
 The JISC is a sub-committee of the Higher Education Funding Council for
England and the higher and further education funding councils in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland
 JISC's activities support education and research by promoting innovation in new
technologies and by the central support of ICT services
 JISC’s programmes and projects assist UK universities and colleges in the
choices they make by trialling innovative approaches
 For the past seven years JISC has been supporting both “green” and “gold” open
access developments alongside support for licensing deals (NESLi2), enabling
UK authors to disseminate their research either through repositories or through
open access journals or through subscription journals
 In undertaking this work, JISC frequently collaborates with other stakeholders
within the UK and across the world
 Universities, funding agencies and authors need information about costs,
benefits, and impacts to make an informed choice between publishing models
Joint Information Systems Committee

5. INFORMING CHOICE: THE WORK OF JISC, THE UK JOINT
INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMITTEE (2)
 The JISC commissioned a report on the “Economic Implications of Alternative
Scholarly Publishing Models” by John Houghton et al.
www.jisc.ac.uk/publications/documents/economicpublishingmodelssummary.aspx
 This report illustrated the substantial economic benefits possible through the use
of either repositories or open access journals
 The UK report was followed by similar reports with similar conclusions in the
Netherlands and Denmark
 The JISC is following up the Houghton work with studies on the institutional costs
and benefits of a transition to OA
 Parallel work is anticipated on the academic impact of OA, i.e. improvements in
research, teaching and learning
 The JISC is also working with publishers on offering authors a choice between
copyright assignment and a licence to publish
Joint Information Systems Committee

6. POLICY CHANGES IN EUROPE
 Policy statements from European organisations have also supported
changes in the publication of research results
 Many national organisations now recommend or require the research
they fund to be made available on open access, generally with an
emphasis upon repository deposit with no more than a 6-month delay
 Collectively the 27 Member States of the European Union have agreed
an open access policy for research funded through FP7
 The European Commission is supporting this political initiative through
funding of 4 million euros for a Scientific Information Repository
 Some European organisations also support “gold” open access, e.g. the
Wellcome Trust provides researchers with funding for this purpose
 Local institutions are considering how to manage the funding of OA
publication charges
Joint Information Systems Committee

7. LOOKING AT CHANGES WORLD-WIDE
 Many developments in research dissemination similar to those in Europe
are happening world-wide, because the drivers for change are
experienced in every country
 Some differences in approach are due to differences in political
structure, such as a tradition or lack of a tradition of governmental action
 Other differences are not explained easily, such as a stronger interest in
“gold” OA in Europe than in the USA
 Countries with newer growth economies and less-established publishers
do not appear to be more advanced in OA developments than countries
with long-established economies and old publishing houses
 Where similar developments are happening, it is vital that we share
experience, e.g. a comparison between the CDL/Springer model and the
MPS/Springer models, one deal with a university consortium and the
other with a research funding organization – with differing priorities?
Joint Information Systems Committee

8. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS (1)
 Most funding agencies, universities and many authors now accept the case for
open access but deposit in repositories and publication in OA journals is still at a
low level
 The passage of time will increase OA use, as new policies are applied, but a
major barrier to change remains in the form of research evaluation and academic
rewards, which are still managed very traditionally
 Many stakeholders are also concerned about future viability of new dissemination
models and this issue has to be addressed
 More radical changes in scholarly communication could take the form of
individual article publication, or new forms of research branding by research
institution rather than by journal title
 New quality-assurance structures would be necessary before such changes
would receive widespread support
 Rather than radical change, more immediate developments may be variations
upon existing journal models
Joint Information Systems Committee

9. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS (2)
 A possible variation upon the repository open access model may be regular
overlay services on top of self-archived content. These overlay services would
provide quality-assurance, make repository content acceptable in research
evaluation and academic rewards, and provide a role for publishers in a
repository environment.
 A possible variation upon the “gold” open access model may be deals which
combine subscription content with OA content in one package and also allow
repository deposit and re-use such as text-mining. These multi-function deals
would allow easier switching between subscriptions and OA publication charges,
reduce administrative costs, and provide authors with a variety of choices for
research dissemination under one roof.
 Models which link the provision of data to the provision of text may lead to a new
type of journal more compatible with modern research needs.
 These and other possible models could provide all stakeholders with their basic
objectives of maintaining quality, matching publication to research output,
providing future viability, and enabling high and effective use of research outputs.
Joint Information Systems Committee

10. HOW WILL ACADEMIC JOURNALS
EMERGE FROM THIS PERIOD OF CHANGE?
 Certainly changed as the e-environment develops, but initially with their essential
features intact, more fundamental changes possibly/probably occurring over time
 Most academic journals are too important to the research community to be
allowed to collapse
 However, their survival will only be ensured by a positive approach to change
(including changes in business models) by stakeholders
 Unpredictable events may create threats, e.g. the financial collapse of a major
journal publisher (no longer considered to be impossible), or further worsening of
the global economic situation
 Dealing with such threats may accelerate the process of change in journal
publishing models but the fundamental need of the academic community to
disseminate research outputs will remain
 The academic community will take more control over the research dissemination
process – publishers’ role being as service providers – but this will be good for
journals
Joint Information Systems Committee

11. CONCLUSIONS
 Change in the world-wide dissemination of research outputs has begun
and will accelerate
 Changes should result in: better value for money for the taxpayer; more
effective research; improvements in teaching and learning; and a
beneficial impact on SMEs and other private and public bodies
 Various dissemination models are developing and it seems likely that no
one model will dominate the landscape in the same way as the
subscription model has done
 Continuing the development and evaluation of new scholarly
communication models is vital as the e-world changes
 External events will have some influence upon the future for journals but
essentially while the academic community needs journals they will
survive
Joint Information Systems Committee

12. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING!
 Information on all of the developments funded by the JISC are available at
www.jisc.ac.uk
 JISC’s scholarly communications work is described at
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/aboutus/committees/workinggroups/scholarlycomms.aspx
 The European Commission’s open access policy is described at
http://ec.europa.eu/research/science-society/document_library/pdf_06/open-access-p
 The Wellcome Trust open access policy is described at
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Spotlight-issues/Openaccess/index.htm
 Recommendations on paying gold OA publication charges in the UK are included
in a working party report at
http://www.rin.ac.uk/files/Paying_open_access_charges_guide_March_2009.pdf
I would welcome your views on the issues described in this presentation: please e-
mail me at f.friend@ucl.ac.uk
Joint Information Systems Committee