The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 273 No 7325 p704
13 November 2004

This article
Reprint   Photocopy

  Acrobat Reader

News summary

Government’s response on scientific publishing disappoints MPs

Members of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee have been disappointed by the Government’s response to their recommendations on scientific publishing.

Earlier this year, the Science and Technology Select Committee had said that all UK academic research should be accessible online and free of charge (PJ, 24 July, p105). It also wanted researchers to be given money so that they could pay for their work to be published, rather than rely on periodical publishers to do it for them.

In response, the Government said that funding for the British Library, which could keep an online archive, was under review but that there was no guarantee that any online archive would be publicly accessible. It also said that it was not persuaded that there was any need to fund author-pays publishing. The response disappointed the Science and Technology Committee, which said: “The Government’s response leaves much of the work in ensuring the effective dissemination of research findings to the whim of the publishing industry. . . . We are disappointed that the Government has missed the opportunity to take more decisive action in response to our report.”
Charles Fry, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society’s director of publications, said: “The Government has rightly recognised that the [science, technology and medicine] publishing sector in the UK is highly successful. The numerous publishers in the sector, both commercial and not-for-profit, ensure that the work of UK researchers is made widely available in both national and international markets; they also make an important contribution to the national economy.”

He added that, like other journal publishers, the Society acknowledges the need for new publishing models to be developed. However, new models are more likely to be durable if they emerge naturally from the market rather than as a result of direct government intervention.

“While the Government response to the select committee’s report is generally fair and balanced, it is to be regretted that the Government did not take the chance to remove or reduce the level of VAT on electronically delivered journals in order to harmonise them with the printed versions. This anomaly has hindered innovation and disadvantaged the whole market for journals in the UK.”