UK GOVERNMENT CAUTIOUS IN RESPONSE TO STM REPORT
If it was somewhat of a surprise that the UK Parliament’s Science and Technology Committee report on STM publishing called for free access to all government-funded research, the government response was no surprise: not so fast. The official STM report, SCIENTIFIC PUBLICATIONS: FREE FOR ALL?, was published on July 20, 2004. On October 26, the committee received a "distillation of responses from all the Government departments and other Government organizations that have an interest in the report." It includes a detailed appendix titled "response from the government" that takes on, point-by-point, some of the conclusions and recommendations put forth following the committee’s inquiry earlier this year. Despite the bold language of the committee, the response indicates that bold changes to the STM marketplace will likely not come from the government. Specifically, the response indicates that the jury is still out on the author pays model of open access. Like the authors of the committee report, which urged more study of OA business models, the government was dubious of an "author pays" model and would "require clear evidence" before supporting OA further. It added that OA could actually be more costly for the UK, given that it contributes 5.3 percent of the world’s STM articles, but contributes just 3.3 percent of the world’s subscription revenue.
The government response concurs with a number of the committee’s conclusions as well, such as those regarding the importance of access to research, and preservation. It makes clear, however, that government’s role is "to focus on a competitive marketplace." Whereas the committee’s report urged action and suggested the current market was broken, citing inflexible big deals, high profit margins of major STM publishers, high inflation for libraries, and shrinking budgets, the government response took a more sanguine view. "The government is not convinced there is an impending crisis in journal provision," the response said. "If anything the reverse seems to be the case, as increasing amounts of material become more accessible from the researcher’s desktop." As for excessive profits, the committee report suggested Office for Fair Trading (OFT) produce biennial reports monitoring the STM market. In its response, a brief statement also appended to the published report, OFT said it would not commit to biennial reports, but would "monitor market developments." A third appendix to the committee report from the UK’s Consortium of University Research Libraries (CURL) and the Society of College National and University Libraries (SCONUL), supported the original report’s finding that publicly funded research be freely available, and shared the committee’s "unease at the current workings of the journals market." The library community offered to work with the government to "implement the report’s recommendations." To read the government’s response, see:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/1200/120002.htm
Library Journal Academic News Wire: November 11, 2004
