In order to do some research for this article, I went to JSTOR and searched, ‘‘the high cost of scholarly journals.” On the side of the page was written, “Your access to JSTOR provided by Bowdoin College.”
“Awesome,” I thought to myself. And that is about all that I thought about when I saw it, because, as with all privilege, it meant that I didn’t have to think about what that disclaimer meant.
It meant that if Bowdoin College did not pay for my access, I would have to find some other way to read journals featuring top-tier academic and scientific research.
Over the last few decades, the cost of subscriptions to academic journals, particularly scientific ones, has been rapidly increasing. In order to stock certain high-end journals, libraries have to pay ever-increasing amounts of money to publishing companies.
In 2005, the 10 most expensive journals Bowdoin bought—all scientific—cost a total of $99,361. According to a 2012 Library Journal periodicals pricing survey, chemistry journals sit at the top, with an average subscription cost of $4,227 a year. Even the wealthiest universities have a difficult time managing journal subscriptions.
A liberal education rests fundamentally on the free exchange of ideas. Researchers and laypeople alike can only benefit by having knowledge as openly accessible as possible. And at a time when the Internet provides a medium to distribute information widely and inexpensively, why do journal prices continue to rise?
In the library journal survey, the authors describe how many journal titles are published by a small number of companies and that there is no real substitute for the unique intellectual content in journals. Consequently, “there are powerful reasons for believing that high and rising prices are due not to costs, but rather to the combination of highly inelastic demand and supplier’s substantial market power.”
Ostensibly, the money that institutions pay to publishing companies goes to cover the costs involved in the final product, and there are always costs involved in having work peer reviewed and published. But publishing companies neither pay the people who write the academic papers, nor do they pay the people who review them.
Much like the difficulty of switching from printed to digital news, figuring out a viable financial model for digitized scholarly publishing is at the heart of the issue.
As the academic world catches up with digitization, the open access movement has been gaining momentum. open access pushes for the free availability and unrestricted use of academic scholarship. A growing number of open academic digital repositories and publishing options are available on the Internet. However, while access to these articles is free, there is always a cost to publishing that must be borne by someone.
Open access advocates experimenting with various ways to pay the costs of publication and peer review. Some open access journals charge publication fees paid for by author-sponsors such as employers or funders.
College Librarian Marjorie Hassen emphasized to me that when it came to publishers and open access, “it’s not one or the other.” Some publishers already provide full open access, some provide hybrid models, some are experimenting, and some are considering experimenting.
The open access goal of making research available to everyone is fundamental to Bowdoin’s philosophy. Bowdoin students and faculty are privileged with nearly unlimited access to scholarly research, but what about researchers in other communities or countries?
Less wealthy countries struggle to get access to contemporary academic work, preventing researchers in those countries from contributing to world-class research. People are much more likely to cite and collaborate if knowledge is freely available.
This is not an abstract issue for many people. Without open access to medical information, for example, you cannot adequately research medications or treatment without paying hundreds of dollars for journal subscriptions.
I asked Science Librarian Sue O’Dell about how this lack of access to information could affect a friend with a sick child, for example.
“What would happen if she was up in Androscoggin County, eight hours from the nearest medical library?” she said. “As a person, I would like to find avenues for broadening horizons of knowledge to be shared, not just with a fortunate few of us, but with everyone. Because the more we know the better we do.”
O’Dell is right. We cannot feast on all this knowledge ourselves. It is our responsibility to ensure that knowledge and information is available to everyone around the world.
The question is how.
Librarians and faculty in academic institutions around the U.S. have been paying close attention to journal costs and have been supportive of open access initiatives and advocates. Hassen described how pressure for open access is building.
“Publishers are seeing that they need to adapt,” she said. “They are responding to this lobbying. They would not do this if nobody was out there banging on their door saying this has to change…If nobody is asking, nobody is going to do anything.”
For most Bowdoin students, this is not an issue that we are forced to think about…for now.
Opening the closed doors of academia starts by recognizing the privilege of having access to an otherwise closed world and paying attention to the debate of who should cover the costs of publishing. Because although we can study without worrying about access to information now, students are the academics and researchers of the future, and it will benefit everyone to share knowledge as widely as possible.