{"id":4600,"date":"2016-03-21T13:22:51","date_gmt":"2016-03-21T12:22:51","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2016\/03\/21\/nwo-wil-wereldwijd-verbond-voor-open-access\/"},"modified":"2025-12-19T11:22:16","modified_gmt":"2025-12-19T10:22:16","slug":"nwo-wil-wereldwijd-verbond-voor-open-access","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.erasmusmagazine.nl\/en\/2016\/03\/21\/nwo-wil-wereldwijd-verbond-voor-open-access\/","title":{"rendered":"NWO wants worldwide open access alliance"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

NWO wil de betaalmuren die de uitgevers hebben gebouwd afbreken<\/span><\/p>

\n\t\n\n<\/svg>\n<\/span>\n\tImage by:<\/span>\n\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\tDennis Hill<\/a>\t\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t<\/p>\n<\/figcaption><\/figure>

Research funders from across the planet will be meeting each other today and tomorrow in the Netherlands. Together, they hope to break free from the hold of academic publishers, explains NWO Chair Jos Engelen. \u201cAs a community, maybe we should put Nature<\/em> itself up for debate.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cIt would be great if science funders were to match words with actions and demand that scientific publications are published in open access from now on,\u201d says physicist Jos Engelen, Chair of the Netherlands Organisation for Scientific Research (NWO).<\/p>\n

As a research funding agency, NWO already demands just this. From the moment of publication, all results of NWO-funded research need to be accessible to the public \u2013 via a university repository, if need be. This may even concern a draft version of an article, before it has been submitted for peer review.<\/p>\n

Engelen hopes that other funders will follow this example. This is what he will be discussing with them in the week ahead. And a number of publishers will also be pulling up a chair, since the NWO Chair hopes to persuade them of the validity of his ambition.<\/p>\n

Paymalls<\/h3>

At present, many scientific articles end up behind the paywalls of leading academic journals. The main idea behind open access is to reverse the flow of funds: from now on, researchers pay for the publication of their article beforehand, after which it can be accessed by anyone who is interested.<\/p>\n

While many people in the world of science sympathise with this approach, it\u2019s easier said than done. \u201cAt first, I also assumed making the transition would be a piece of cake,\u201d says Engelen. \u201cBut there are a number of obstacles in practice. Today and tomorrow, we\u2019ll be examining how we can clear them.\u201d<\/p>\n

It is possible<\/h3>

He takes his own branch, particle physics, as an example. \u201cAs a field, it is quite clearly laid out, with seven or eight journals. You can put them around a table and say: let\u2019s enter into an agreement: from now on, all research funders pool money in advance, and then you agree to publish the articles in open access. Great idea, you would think. But then you get down to brass tacks: who\u2019s going to pay for it? The Netherlands is a strong player in the field of particle physics and publishes a lot of articles. Does this mean we need to put up more money than a large country like China? Why should we take this step if China pays more for magazine subscriptions than we do?\u201d<\/p>\n

But they got there in the end, and the contract has just been extended for three years. \u201cSo it\u2019s possible,\u201d says Engelen. \u201cBut discussions about money always take surprisingly long to round off.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another complicating factor is that the Dutch universities engage in joint negotiations with publishers like Elsevier. These negotiations deal with all academic journals in one fell swoop: the so-called package deals.<\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

But money isn\u2019t the only problem. Researchers aren\u2019t prepared to start boycotting reputable magazines purely on an issue like open access. \u201cYou want to keep the good academic journals on board,\u201d says Engelen, \u201cbecause they help to assess quality. But we do intend to persuade publishers of the wisdom of the desired new model.\u201d<\/p>\n

Putting Nature up for debate<\/h3>

Still, at some point, it\u2019s time to stop talking and get down to business. In Engelen\u2019s view, the role played by some renowned publications \u2013 Science<\/em> and Nature<\/em>, for example \u2013 has become too big. And these journals aren\u2019t prepared to make the transition. \u201cNature<\/em> says: publishing in open access would be prohibitively expensive for us, since we have a lengthy and highly selective editorial process. At which point I would say: as a community, maybe we should put Nature<\/em> itself up for debate.\u201d<\/p>\n

He understands publishers\u2019 motives for not joining in from the get-go. \u201cIf you\u2019re turning a healthy profit and customers keep coming back, you don\u2019t really feel the need for change. But in fact, we\u2019re those customers \u2013 and when we start to grumble, they should take notice. As they are gradually beginning to, by the way.\u201d<\/p>\n

Also read<\/h2>