Executive sumary

This study of open access business models indicates that every form of open access to publicly-
funded research and teaching outputs requires public funding. Private funding may provide
partial support for some open access models (e.g. if an author pays for the cost of publishing
in an open access journal) but no open access model can survive on private funding alone.
In this respect open access business models are no different from the current subscription
or licensing business models for academic journals, as the publishers of the journals are also
dependent upon the purchase of subscriptions or licences by publicly-funded libraries. The
factor distinguishing open access business models from subscription or licensing business
models is the higher level of benefit from open access in relation to the cost to the taxpayer. 1
To a certain extent the level of benefit is related to the commitment to open access by funding
agencies and institutions, clear policies and good management resulting in a higher number of
open access publications and higher consequential benefits.

This study illustrates the considerable variety of business models within a common framework
of public funding. 2 Open access through institutional repositories requires funding from
particular institutions to set up and maintain a repository, while the business model for subject
repositories often requires contributions from a number of institutions or funding agencies
to maintain a subject repository hosted at one institution. Open access through publication
in open access journals generally requires a mix of funding sources to meet the cost of
publishing. Public or charitable research funding bodies may contribute part of the cost of
publishing in an open access journal but institutions also meet part of the cost, particularly
when the author does not have a research grant from a research funding body. To some
extent the benefits follow the funding, institutions and their staff members being the primary
beneficiaries from institutional repositories, while national research funding agencies may
be the primary beneficiaries from the publication on open access of the research they fund.
However, in addition all open access business models allow benefits to flow to communities
which have not been part of the funding infrastructure.

Executive summary

This report was commissioned by a consortium of European research funding organizations led
by the Wellcome Trust. The study was undertaken to stimulate thinking among research funders
who have set up, or are considering setting up, mechanisms for direct “earmarked” funding of
article processing charges (APCs) in open access (OA) journals.
The report covers both full OA journals (referred to in the report as “full OA”, such as those
published by Biomed Central and PLOS) and subscription journals which offer authors the
possibility of making their individual articles OA by paying an APC. This latter category is known
as “hybrid OA”.

There are many full OA journals that are funded by means other than APCs and the term “gold
OA” also includes these journals. When they are included in the discussion this will be make clear,
the focus of the report is however on the segment of gold OA funded by APCs.

Summary

A knowledge economy has been defined as: “...one in which the generation and exploitation of
knowledge has come to play the predominant part in the creation of wealth. It is not simply
about pushing back the frontiers of knowledge; it is also about the more effective use and
exploitation of all types of knowledge in all manner of economic activities” (DTI 1998). In a
knowledge economy, innovation and the capacity of the system to create and disseminate the
latest scientific and technical information are important determinants of prosperity (David and
Foray 1995; OECD 1997).

Scholarly publishing plays a key role, as it is central to the efficiency of research and to the
dissemination of research findings and diffusion of scientific and technical knowledge. But,
advances in information and communication technologies are disrupting traditional models of
scholarly publishing, radically changing our capacity to reproduce, distribute, control, and
publish information. The key question is whether there are new opportunities and new models
for scholarly publishing that would better serve researchers and better communicate and
disseminate research findings (OECD 2005, p14).

Executive Summary

This report examines the operational challenges that universities, funders and publishers face
in the UK relating to the payment of article processing charges (APCs) – the charges levied
by the publishers of open access and hybrid journals to meet the costs of the publication
process. It then examines the feasibility of using intermediaries of various kinds to provide
services to aggregate payments as between universities and publishers, along with other
services relating to the processes involved in ensuring that an article is published on open
access terms. The aim would be to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the processes
involved for funders, universities and publishers.

The study on which this report is based was limited in scope, but set in a broader strategic
context. The recommendations of the Finch Report on how to expand access to published
research findings have been followed by a significant shift in policy in the UK towards the
support of open access publishing funded by APCs. The assumptions underlying the new
policies are that they represent the most effective way to increase access to the UK’s
excellent research, with publications underpinned by high-quality and sustainable services for
both authors and readers; and that they should support the development of an effective,
transparent and growing market for ‘Gold’ open access publishing. The development of such
a market, however, depends not only on efficient operational processes, but also on effective
flows of information between the different agents and players. More generally, it is likely that
as the transition to open access gathers pace, there will be a complex set of interactions
between developments at strategic and operational levels.

We conclude as a result of our work that with a very few exceptions, the systems and
processes currently associated with the payment of APCs are sub-optimal, and could present
a significant barrier to the wider adoption of open access publishing. Our research also
indicates, however, that there is no consensus on the potential value of the use of
intermediaries as a means of addressing these problems, or whether it would indeed be
beneficial to introduce intermediary services, or whether the benefits would outweigh the
disadvantages or risks. Such concerns are exacerbated by lack of clarity as to how
intermediary services might be organised, structured and managed.