Free Content - Or Not?
University of Montreal Professor Jean-Claude Guedon says Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers are too bottom-line orientated and should make their content available free ... DCL's David Skurnik (pictured below) disagrees and offers a compromise solution

IT STARTED with a bang. But I wasn't surprised considering the strong views that surround the issue of Fair Use. It was the end of May and I was at the Annual General Meeting of the Society of Scholarly Publishers (SSP). The "explosive" beginning came from University of Montreal Professor Jean-Claude Guedon. He was reprimanding STM publishers for their "bottom line focus." This, he said, has led to higher subscription costs and, in turn, a decrease in the accessibility of scientific information throughout the world.

He also bemoaned what he called the "800-pound gorilla" phenomenon where a select group of large commercial publishers keep growing by acquisition. Guedon felt these publishers could ultimately bring about the destruction of science.

A radical statement...

His argument went like this: Only the heavyweight publishers have the ability to make the "big deal" with a medical, institutional, or Government consortium. On top of this, the "gorilla's Portal," as he called it, which would be used by the consortium to do their research, contains roughly 75 percent of their content and 25 percent of the rest of the world's content.

This restricts the majority of scientific research to the titles contained in the Portal. And means articles in the Portal, published by the heavyweights, get cited more often in research articles. Since funding is heavily predicated on a citing index, these titles will continue to exist, while other titles not cited (primarily because very few researchers will have access to them) will eventually get phased out.

Therefore, researchers working under the umbrella of major STM publishers will get the lion's share of funding and publicity. While those who aren't will find it increasingly difficult to get their research out to the wider world or to get it adequately peer-reviewed. This could mean valuable scientific findings never see the light of day.

Returning to his original issue, the Professor put forward his solution to Fair Use: The publishers should provide their content for free.

Mmnn ... Okay ...
But wouldn't they flounder
and go out of business?

No, said Guedon, they could make their money on providing the "bells and whistles" of publishing content. But he didn't specify what these should be.

At the end of the session I stood up and raised the following points to the professor and the assembled audience:

"Firstly, when it comes to acquisition, you can safely assume 'commercial Darwinism' is involved. Organizations don't seek to be acquired unless their prospects for survival look bleak due to rising production costs and the shaky economic climate. In which case, they view being taken over as the brightest option. After all, why else would a firm that can pay its bills and turn a healthy profit want to be taken over?

"Secondly, you have to ask yourself why smaller firms are finding it more and more difficult to make ends meet? Could it be that academics like the Professor are, to some extent, exacerbating the problem by insisting prices should be lower or that content should be free?"

My spleen vented, I sat down. But there is one other point that should be made on this issue. Namely ... you can't tell a business community to give away what they produce for free and to make money on "bells and whistles" ... at least not without offering a clear plan as to what these extras should be.

It's like telling a car manufacturer to give its basic vehicles away for free and to make money on various options like sun roofs, beefy stereos, or in-car TV. Apart from anything else, you're asking people to risk their livelihoods. But if you are prepared to do this, you need to be the one setting the example ... taking the plunge first. So I would ask all those who sympathize with the free content stance to do the following:

1. Stop taking a salary and make money on the "bells and whistles" of education -- maybe private tutoring or creating lecturing "super" courses that can be given to students off hours.
2. To petition colleges and universities around the world to provide education for free -- and make money on extras like offering Gourmet meals and typing services for term papers.

Ridiculous? Yes. But it does serve to illustrate the point: You can't expect people to give up their main source of income and make money on "bells and whistles." Especially when there is no guarantee these extras will bring in enough to keep the organization afloat.

Clearly, the advancement of science is an ideal everyone favors. But it can't be attained at the expense of STM publishers.

Catch 22
for Society Publishers

Interestingly, Society Publishers are faced with a bigger challenge than their commercial counterparts. When confronted with the prospect of having to give away their content, they are subject to the same threat to their existence as the commercial publishers face. The big difference is they don't get acquired because they aren't commercial enterprises; they're typically non-profits. And although a significant part of their revenue may come from publications, publishing isn't their main mission. Serving their members is their main mission and publishing is one way they do that. So they're in a Catch 22 situation.

Middle ground

Before finishing, I'd like to point out that there is a middle ground to this argument. A compromise that could benefit both "free content" academics and publishers.

Let me give you a brief outline: The fact is, content could be distributed more cost efficiently if all publishers embraced new technology, especially in the light of recent advances in XML and SGML. Using Content Management Systems (CMS) based around XML and SGML and reengineering their production process would help cut the costs of production enormously. Particularly when the print side of operations can be enhanced to incorporate digital workflows and output to multiple platforms.

What's more, producing XML or SGML directly from author manuscripts is possible today. This would improve the consistency of data up front, allowing publishers to publish faster and lower production costs. It would be a win-win situation: The academics would see cheaper content and publishers, big and small, would see a rosier financial future ahead.

Special Note:

• To understand how SGML and XML can enhance your production process I recommend you read the interviews we have published over the past few newsletters from leaders in STM Publishing, who have enjoyed very definite advantages from these technologies.

The final interview in the series is with Bob Hecht of Marcel Decker ... who says electronic publishing is not just about product anymore, it's about process ... click here to read it.

• In an upcoming edition of DCLnews, I plan to author a white paper which will summarize what was said in these interviews ... and ... I will add to the discussion personally with a look at the benefits of converting to SGML and XML directly from author manuscripts. Don't miss it!

If you would like a preview of the white paper, then click here to take a look at the Pre-Seminar Workshop I gave at the SSP conference. It discusses using XML up front in the publishing process and at the benefits of using the technology in general.

13/8/2002
David Skurnik
Vice President of Sales
dskurnik@dclab.com

Read more STM Publishing related articles at DCL Library

Return to top