UK inquiry Scientific Publications UN - WSIS

Civil Society Working Group on Scientific Information Tunis Phase Implementation of WSIS recommendations at National Levels : United Kingdom Parliament

Science and Technology Committee

Inquiry - Scientific Publications (House of Parliament 10 Dec. 2004 )
Written evidences were to be submitted by Thursday 12 February 2004.
Oral evidence sessions began in March

Submitted written evidence documents

Evidence (version corrected for typos)
List of Exhibits :
Exhibit A : Bethesda statement
Exhibit B : Berlin declaration
Exhibit C : WSIS Declaration
Exhibit D : WSIS Plan of Action
Exhibit E : Budapest declaration

First two sessions : Monday 1 March and Monday 8 March 2004 at 4.15 pm . All 4 panels are welcoming publishers.
Uncorrected Oral Evidence :
- First Session Monday 1 March 2004
  Mr Robert Campbell, President, Blackwell Publishing, Dr Richard Charkin, Nature Publishing Group, Macmillan Limited, Dr John Jarvis, Senior Vice President, Europe, Managing Director, Wiley Europe Limited; Mr Crispin Davis, Chief Executive Officer, Reed Elsevier, Mr Arie Jongejan, Chief Executive Officer, Science and Technology, Elsevier
- Second Session Monday 8 March 2004
  Dr Julia King, Chief Executive, Institute of Physics (IoP), Mrs Sally Morris, Chief Executive, Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP), Mr Martin Richardson, Managing Director, Journals Division, Oxford University Press; Dr Nigel Goddard, Chief Executive Officer, Axiope Limited, Mr Vitek Tracz, Chairman, Current Science Group (BioMed Central) and Dr Harold E Varmus, President and Chief Executive Officer, Public Library of Science
- Third Session Wednesday 21 April 10.00am
  - Panel 1 - Libraries and associated bodies : Mrs Lynne Brindley, Chief Executive, British Library, Mr Peter Fox, University Librarian, Cambridge University, Mr Frederick J Friend, Joint Information Systems Committee, Ms Di Martin, Dean, Learning and Information Services, University of Hertfordshire;
  - Panel 2 - Academics and associated bodies :
    - Mrs Jane Carr, Chief Executive, Authors' Licensing & Collecting Society,
    - Professor James C Crabbe , Head, School of Animal and Microbial Sciences, University of Reading, Editor of Computational Biology and Chemistry (Elsevier)
    - Professor John C Fry, Professor of Microbial Ecology, Cardiff University, Editor of Journal of Microbiological Methods (Elsevier)
    - Professor Nigel J Hitchin, Professor of Mathematics, University of Oxford,
    - Professor David F Williams, Professor of Tissue Engineering, University of Liverpool, Editor-in-chief of Biomaterials (Elsevier)
- Fourth Session Monday 26 April 4.30pm - The use of Science in UK International Development Policy ( Professor Sir David King ,Ms Fiona Clouder Richards, Head of Science and Technology, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Dr Lloyd Anderson, Director, Science, British Council, and Dr Peter Tibber Director, International Sectors Group, UK Trade and Investment )
- Last Session Wednesday 5 May at 10.00am (Professor Sir Keith O'Nions, Director General of the Research Councils, Rama Thirunamachandran, Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer, Higher Education Funding Council for England ,Professor John Wood, Chief Executive Officer, Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils, on behalf of Research Councils UK)
Press Notice
A press conference will be held in the Conference Centre Auditorium at the British Library, 96 Euston Road, London at 10am on Tuesday 20 July at which copies of the Report will be available.
Science and Technology - Tenth Report ( PDF )
Evidences(PDF)

Our preliminary observations (May 04)

We are extremely disappointed with this inquiry that seemed to start on excellent premises. One can clearly see that the oral testimony schedule is completely unbalanced in favor of publishers. There are fours panels for publishers vs one panel for Libraries and only one for Academics ( not even completely, since one of the witnesses is not a scientist ) !. It is most incredible that scientists are given such a disadvantaged treatment ( Note that the The Royal Society testified as a publisher...and it shows...). Among the academics, not one eminent British figure of the Open Access movement ( such as Dr. Harnad from the University of Southampton) is called to speak on the floor. Concerning the fourth session, related to the "use" (not the role ) of science in UK International Development Policy, the floor is only given to British subjects. No foreign people, not even one soul from developing countries, have been invited as witnesses. How the UK International Development Policy in relationship to Science can be seriously considered without discussing on the floor the very recent WSIS conclusions ? The irony is that Committee secretary replied to us that "Your written evidence was very thorough and, because of this, the Committee decided that it did not need any further information from you." Is this a joke ?. Despite counterclaims, we cannot believe that "written evidence is considered by the Committee to be of equal weight and value to oral evidence". The media and psychological impact is quite different. The UK parliament committee is not making every effort to implement the WSIS recommendations. We have sent an informal note to the UK ambassador to the WSIS. We are logically expecting that the likely outcome and conclusions of this inquiry is going to be as unfair as the oral evidence schedule was.

Further comments ( June 04 )

Excerpts from an interview: Muguet won't be drawn into commenting heavily on the UK Parliamentary Inquiry into scientific publishing. He submitted a lengthy written evidence document, but he is openly critical of how the inquiry has been handled. He has not been invited to present oral evidence. "I am really quite disappointed." He has posted a commentary on the WSIS Civil Society Scientific Information website that criticises the scheduling and the small number of scientists that were invited to give oral testimony. "One can clearly see that the oral testimony schedule is completely unbalanced in favour of publishers. How can the UK International Development Policy in relationship to Science be seriously considered without discussing the very recent WSIS conclusions and also major Open Access declarations, such as the recent Berlin Declaration?" asks Muguet.

Muguet is clearly cautious: "I would logically expect that their conclusions will be as unbalanced as the schedule was. But a pleasant surprise cannot be excluded, judging from the mood of the public hearings, as reported by friends." One worry is that the UK Inquiry might set a bad precedent for further attempts at national legislation. "If the WSIS recommendations are not discussed in details in this inquiry, they are of little consequence for our purpose. Maybe it was too soon after the WSIS, too soon for awareness to be raised". Muguet adds that "What matters is that we have now the legal international basis to ask for (such inquiries). Now the politicians have a solid reference frame and they must begin implementing the WSIS recommendations.

Follow-up informations (14 July 04)

The Government is obliged to reply, usually within 2 months, although because of the recess the expectation is that this will be a longer period in the case of scientific publications. The Government are not obliged to DO anything about the recommendations, although the Committee may choose to follow up the Government's response with further questions, evidence sessions and debates in the House. ( Courtesy of Robert Terry, Senior Policy Adviser, The Wellcome Trust ).

Mention of the WSIS in the report (20 July 2004)

The international context :

We received evidence from many non-UK based organisations and conferences, among them the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), the Council of Australian University Librarians, the Canadian Association of Research Libraries and the International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers. The extent of the international interest in our inquiry has convinced us not only that the issues we have been considering are of international interest and importance but also that there is pressure for change in other countries as well as the UK. The backdrop of international interest and momentum for change sets the scene for the UK Government to take a lead in establishing an efficient and sustainable environment for the publication of research findings.

In December 2003, a convention of the World Summit of the Information Society, a summit of the UN, adopted several recommendations relating to the publishing industry, and produced a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action. In these documents, the signatories, including the UK, declare themselves to be strongly in favour of "Open Access". Evidence submitted to this inquiry by WSIS notes that there is no obligation for countries to enforce the recommendations of the summit. However, it also states that "it would be quite difficult for any government who undersigned the WSIS texts to take decisions that go against the Declaration of Principles and the Plan of Action".[42] The Government officials we met appeared to be unaware of the existence of the summit.[43] It is unlikely, therefore, that the Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action have had any impact on UK policy to date.
Government action :

We received many calls for publishing in an author-pays journal to be made mandatory under the terms of research grants awarded from public funds. The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), for example, argued that "concerning the policy that should be adopted by funding entities, it is clear that because of sheer inertia, or because of fear of retribution from publishers, a compulsory policy must be adopted".[323] Whilst we do not believe that there is sufficient evidence to support the implementation of a Government mandate, we do not see this as an excuse for the current lack of any coherent Government policy on author-pays publishing.

Some Evidences submitted by other parties

Royal Society testimony :