Who will pay for the arXiv?
Posted by Flip Tanedo on 29 Dec 2009 at 07:12 am
[Sorry if this is a little dry compared to my usual posts, but this is more of a news report for the HEP community.]
Last time I mentioned the INSPIRE system as an exciting development in high energy physics literature databases (no, that’s not an oxymoron). There’s another big change going on in that field next year, but this will be behind-the-scenes. None-the-less, it’s raised a lot of questions about the ownership and financial support of an important resource that is free to anyone in the world: the arXiv.
The e-print arXiv (pronounced “archive”) is a central repository of research articles in physics, mathematics, computer science, and quantitative biology. Since its inception in 1991 by theoretical physicist Paul Ginsparg, it has had a huge impact on the way science is done by providing free access to “pre-prints” of research papers. This meant that scientists from anywhere in the world with any background could access the latest research even if their university libraries didn’t have a copy of the particular journal in which it was published. This is a big deal since the cost of many of these journals created a gap between those institutions which could afford to pay for many journals and those which could not. In many ways arXiv “brought science into the 21st century” by allowing scientists to draw upon the collective scientific community more efficiently. Many credit it for pioneering the open access movement in scientific publishing.
But with increasing costs and the state of university budgets, the Cornell University Library (which operates the arXiv) is looking to find more cost-effective ways to support the arXiv and the much-needed overhauls in the software architecture (“arXiteXture”?). [Earlier this year Cornell closed its Physical Sciences library to help trim operational costs.] Currently the Cornell library pays the $400,000/year operating cost to make the arXiv available free-of-charge to the rest of the world. Here’s the official statement so far:
Cornell University Library is beginning an effort to expand funding sources for arXiv to ensure its stability and continued development. We intend to establish a collaborative business model that will engage the institutions that benefit most from arXiv — academic institutions, research centers and government labs — by asking them for voluntary contributions. We are working with library and research center directors at the institutions that are the heaviest users of arXiv to refine our plan and to enlist support. We expect to release the plan, with a call for broader engagement and contribution, in early 2010.
There’s also a very handy FAQ on the funding changes, which are still a work-in-progress. Because the arXiv is such an important resource to a range of disciplines, the proposed changes have had some in the physics community asking whether it’s time to re-evaluate whether a single private library system should have ‘ownership’ of the arXiv as researchers contemplated the ‘nightmare scenario’ of the arXiv becoming a pay-to-use site. (Fortunately this is not the case.) Indeed, the arXiv has been instrumental in supporting research institutions that are unable to afford the costs of journals from for-profit publishers. The FAQ provides some insight about the direction that the arXiv managers are heading.
Currently the plan is to ask the “heaviest user institutions” (other university library systems) to voluntarily contribute to support arXiv operational costs. The FAQ states that the library has already secured commitments from 11 of the 20 institutions that make the most use of the arXiv. (I’ve seen an unofficial list; these include many of the ‘big name research institutes’ around the world.) In return, besides academic karma, these institutions will be recognized for their support with arXiv banners and would possibly be privy to more detailed arXiv usage statistics. The target appears to have such contributions support a fraction of the operating budget. There is no plan to charge individuals for uploading or downloading papers from the arXiv. This business model is meant to be a temporary plan for the next three years while a longer-term solution can be figured out in collaboration with the wider community. It seems like the arXiv managers envision this long term plan being some kind of mixture of Cornell and user-institution support, but they are open to external support, e.g. from the National Science Foundation (which many physicists have suggested).
Just before the winter break the arXiv managers had meetings with the Cornell physics department to discuss the future changes to the arXiv. Unfortunately I was unable to attend that meeting because I was already back in California to spend the holidays with my family (… and to have transcontinental Skype conversations with my collaborators), but you can expect an official public announcement about the new arXiv program from the Cornell Library this coming January.
- Flip
I think they should also look into accepting monthly donations from individuals – allowing people who can afford it to donate something small to help out. If enough people do this, it will cover a substantial portion of the costs if not all of it – and I think many physicists and even laymen understand the importance of having something like the arXiv. By small I mean something like a dollar to ten dollars a month, depending on how much you can afford to spend.
I hate websites that charge per download, especially those that only take credit cards – as a Dutch student, I have no need of a credit card, as I can usually use my Paypal account or my debit card for every transaction (note I can usually get at papers through my university now, so my situation may not be that relevant).
Hi Flip,
thanks for this news, I had not heard about it before. You are quite right – the arXiv revolutionized the way particle physicists shared their research results, to the point where most people follow only the arXiv, and ignore the journals, when they want to learn about latest work in the field. I remember going to the university and laboratory libraries, where paper preprints were displayed and one could sit down and read them. No one does that today, for sure.
You outlined the issues and proposed plan, thanks for writing such a clear article / blog entry about this.
Michael
My perspective is that researchers, scholarly societies, and libraries need to cooperate to transition funding from the current scholarly publishing system to one that prioritizes the scholarly communication services that researchers need and use, such as arXiv.
There is more than enough money in the system; more than enough to keep the largest scholarly publishers in profit margins in the range of 30% plus, and to reap record profits at a time of financial crisis.
More on this can be found on my blog:
Research Brief: Library savings from full flip to open access via article processing fees: about two-thirds savings
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/10/research-brief-library-savings-from.html
Taylor and Francis first half results 2009: academic information revenue up 25%, and, are shareholders more interested in OA than T & F?
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/09/taylor-and-francis-first-half-results.html
Elsevier plus LexisNexis earned more than $1.5 billion in PROFIT in 2008
http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2009/02/elsevier-plus-lexisnexis-earned-more.html
The library community is just beginning to look at the process of transitioning to an equitable model for open access support. While the initial focus is on equitable support for open access journals, it is my recommendation that all libraries a) join and b) broaden the mandate to include support for open access archives. [Disclosure: I am a member of the governing team for E-LIS; it is my personal wish to see such support for E-LIS as well. This is NOT an official E-LIS view].
Best wishes to arXiv and thank you to Cornell University and its library for supporting this important initiative.
Before accepting donations, they should announce themselves as non-profit organization…
Who is to guarantee that some change of management, in future will not make it pay-per-view? Only way to secure the freedom of knowledge in arXiv is to go the way Wikipedia has gone, non-profit.