Lack of fizzle at EC Brussels meeting disguises progress on OA

The much-anticipated Brussels EC conference (Scientific Publishing in the European Research Area: Access, Dissemination and Preservation in the Digital Age, 15-16 February 2007) came and went with an official communication (From The Commission to the European Parliament, the Council and the European Economic and Social Committee, on scientific information in the digital age: access, dissemination and preservation) drafted before the meeting took place, and apparently, to those not there, not much else. Little of the subsequent list and blog discussion seems to have focussed on the substance of what happened at the meeting, although this report from JISC gives an overview of proceedings, and Stevan Harnad and Peter Suber blogged comments on the meeting and the communication, respectively.

For repositories the significance of the meeting was anticipated to be a policy from the EC mandating open access to the results and publications of research that it funds. Instead of "Let's mandate OA self-archiving" (the EC's proposal (A1), January 2006), however, we got "let's keep talking" (see Comments to Harnad blog above).

Expectations of a mandate were probably over-inflated, so we should be careful not to apply too negative an interpretation to the result. The lesson is that while inspired politicians will see the case for OA, we should not expect governments to take the lead on OA policy decisions. We knew this from the UK example, where the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, in its report Scientific Publications: Free for all? (20 July 2004), identified what needed to be done: all institutions should set up IRs. That was not taken up by government, but instead by the research councils in the form of OA mandates. The research councils represent research and researchers, so it was a natural development for them, but the select committee clearly had some influence.

That has already begun to happen in the European case too. The newly inaugurated 7.5bn euros 'flagship' research agency, the European Research Council (ERC), has stated its commitment to "policies mandating the public availability of research results – in open access repositories."

For politicians making a decision about OA is not instinctive. They have wider interests to represent, a different balance of priorities, and ultimately votes to consider. According to Suber, writing in his more reflective monthly newsletter, "the lack of fireworks looks deliberate. The two EC Directorates General most involved in OA policy-making -- Information Society and Media, headed by Vivian Reding, and Research, headed by Janez Potocnik -- are trying to find a diplomatic trail through a minefield. They are eager to show support for the concerns on each side and postpone the day when they will have to alienate one of them."

The economic interests of OA have been given powerful weight in earlier reports (e.g. Houghton J. and Sheehan, P., The Economic Impact of Enhanced Access to Research Findings, 2006). A glance at the Brussels programme reveals that these were not the economics under discussion. The interests of publishers and publishing were to the fore, and Brussels politicians know that in Europe journals publishing is big business. Here some balance and perspective is needed: "The publishing industry has so far been successfully representing itself as if it were the industrial dimension of research activity, and as if it were publishing-industry revenues that represent the wealth-creation benefits of research, whereas in fact they are nothing of the sort: The real industrial dimension of research is incomparably bigger than the publishing industry", Stevan Harnad is quick to point out. Given further consideration, hopefully politicians will respond to this balance of interests across all of industry and research.

"The Communication is not a policy but a pointer toward a future policy", Suber continued. "It sends two signals: first that the EC has been listening to arguments from both sides and second, that all things considered it wants to move toward OA. What it does not do is squarely accept or reject the EC report's recommendation A1 for an OA mandate."

So the follow-up to Brussels for OA will involve more petitions, polls, and politics, but ultimately aimed at those who can make a difference, those with an interest in promoting the benefits of research. If European politicians can take a role in influencing European research orgnisations towards OA policies and mandates, then the Brussels meeting will not have been in vain.

Postscript 1. It was no doubt entirely coincidental, but a remarkable one nonethleless, that at the same time as the Brussels meeting was being held there was a "National Day of Action" by students across the USA in support of the Federal Research Public Access Act (The US equivalent of EC A1). The lesson from Brussels can be applied here too. The US may be lucky and its politicians may back the act, but don't bank on it. That's not to say that the political process is not advantageous. What it does is prompt a wider debate among those to whom OA matters and makes a difference; research organisations. With this sort of demonstrated, literally, support in the USA, OA is on the way.

Postscript 2. Much of the fun of the Brussels conference seemed to come before the meeting. With petitions and polls circulating, and publishers and researchers supposedly moving into battle positions, one blogger even suggested that Stevan Harnad's influence on proceedings would soon lead to the publisher tanks being parked on the University of Southampton's driveway. Matt Hodgkinson ("an editor with BioMed Central") even provided an illustration. Fortunately we didn't have to look outside to reassure ourselves this was not real since two of the buildings shown have already been demolished, not by armed tanks but following a fire in October 2005.