Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-76-author-processing-charge...
Dear HIFA colleagues,
The Gates Foundation has decided this year to stop paying author processing charges (APCs). [ https://openaccess.gatesfoundation.org/ ] I'd like to share a few reflections and invite your comments.
Since the 1990s, when open access was really taking off, I have always assumed that the funders of research would take responsibility for author processing charges. It is in the interests of research funders that the research is published and disseminated, in a format that is most trustworthy and useful for readers. This added value has traditionally been provided by the editorial and peer review processes of academic journals. APCs typically represent a very small percentage of the total costs of research.
(There are other models of payment of APCs, notably the 'read and publish' agreements between academic institutions and publishers whereby the institution pays an annual fee and authors from that institution are exempted from APCs. We can discuss these also.)
What is the Gates Foundation's position on open access? The two key points are:
1. The Gates Foundation will no longer pay APCs
2. The Gates Foundation expects all researchers to publish their findings as a preprint.
What is a preprint? 'In academic publishing, a preprint is a version of a scholarly or scientific paper that precedes formal peer review and publication in a peer-reviewed scholarly or scientific journal.' Wikipedia
On their website the Gates Foundation says:
1. 'Preprints are free to read and free to publish [yes, but all open access journals are free to read and many are free to publish]
2. 'They're also journal agnostic which means the research can be evaluated in its own merit and not the journal in which it's published' [a key function of journals is to evaluate papers on their own merit]
3. 'This allows for the research community to quickly respond and address any issues [if we have a precipitation of preprints, will this help the research community to 'respond quickly'?]
4. 'Which will thus make it more trustworthy' [will we trust preprints more than journal articles?]
5. 'We are stopping support for APCs... this is a critical step in achieving more equitable open access business models moving forward' [but what will be the impact on the global evidence ecosystem? on the availability or reliable healthcare information? - below]
Why have they come to this decision? I have spoken to some who are in favour of the policy, and a key argument is that some OA publishers have been profiteering from the APC system. I agree. In my view, the obvious way forward is not to exclude publishers entirely, but to call them out and negotiate. It would seem feasible for funders and publishers to agree *reasonable* APC costs, taking into account both the size of the research budget and the amount of work required by the publisher. If necessary, funders could cap the APC budget line in research proposals, or they could instead have a broader 'dissemination' budget line which would give authors choice on where and how to spend on the dissemination of their research.
Publishing of research (including editing and peer review) is one of the six critical components of the global evidence ecosystem [ https://www.hifa.org/about-hifa ]. If we mess with this component, we risk weakening the overall ecosystem and reducing the availability and use of reliable healthcare information. I agree that it is important to explore new models, including the potential of preprints and open peer review, and the increasing role of AI. However, in the meantime I would advocate for funders to take responsibility for *reasonable* APC costs as a budget line in the research proposal.
I recognise that many HIFA members may not agree that funders should take responsibility for APCs. I do not have special expertise in this topic and am ready to learn.
I look forward to your comments.
Many thanks, 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