On-line Working and Open Access Publishing

" ... Another potential change that would hold greater long-term significance for Annals of Botany, and many other science journals, is ‘open access’ publishing. While not everyone agrees on what should or should not be included in open access publishing, an overarching feature is that there should be universal access to all scientific knowledge ... Few would willingly stand against these high-minded sentiments on principle but, when decoded, they mean that access to scientific journals and papers on the web should be payment-free to the reader or to his/her employer. They also mean that the considerable costs of publication would then be borne by authors, not their readers. Payment-free reading also addresses the thorny question of why publicly funded institutions such as universities should pay for journals that publish the results of research that is almost entirely funded from the public purse in the first place. It might also moderate the sizeable and largely risk-free profits allegedly made by a small number of increasingly dominant publishing companies.  It is not my intention to debate the rights and wrongs of the arguments supporting a move to open access publishing in science overall. But, it is my responsibility to assess what might be gained or lost by Annals of Botany and by its readers and authors if the Journal switched to open access. The major gain is presumed to be greater use of the Journal's papers following unrestricted access to the full texts. But this advantage can easily be overemphasized. As things stand now, all papers in Annals of Botany enjoy universal cost-free access a year or so after they are published, while abstracts and authors' contact details are made instantly available for all papers. Furthermore, its Invited Reviews and Botanical Briefings have always enjoyed unrestricted cost-free access from first publication. In the longer term, a further perceived advantage of open access is cross-journal searching for up-to-date compatible data sets, especially in the field of molecular biology. However, despite these possible gains, the likely negative effects seem much more profound. Firstly, authors or their employers, or grant-giving bodies, would need to find in excess of £1000 for each paper appearing in the Journal. Secondly, the extra services that authors now receive cost-free would become available only on substantial additional payments. The services at risk include free colour plates, free reprints, and free printed copy to every corresponding author of the issue in which their article appears. Under open access, readers too may find the Journal less attractive and giving poorer coverage of their subject area because fewer laboratories can afford to publish. In other words, much good science might not be published in future. Cost-cutting measures to minimize author fees would inevitably also threaten our current practice of publishing additional Special Issues free of charge to subscribers and also raise the prospect of introducing a handling fee for all submissions. A further casualty could be the wider support Annals of Botany gives to the plant science community ..."