|
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.
"You can't tell a business community
to give away what they produce for free and to make money on
"bells and whistles."
|
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:
- 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.
- 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
|