According to the authors, the publication of scientific journals is currently dominated by a handful of profit-oriented publishers. Income is derived from subscription contracts with libraries or by charging fees to publish articles, known as article processing charges (APCs). As funding for science and academic libraries is a public task, publishers’ profits ultimately come from public finances. Monopoly structures lacking sufficient market controls have arisen, which have made scientific publication much more expensive without adding scientific value. In order to correct this trend, according to the authors, scientific publication should be funded and monitored in the same way as research itself. Accordingly, they recommend establishing what is known as a diamond open access model, which ensures free access for both authors and readers. The running and the funding of journals that follow this model remain in the hands of expert scientific organisations or institutions that receive a budget for the purpose. This budget allows them to contract service providers in competitive procedures to fulfil certain publication components.
Running a journal under the proposed funding system would be based on an application submitted by a scientific society, an academy, or a public institution with a scientific or infrastructural mission. The authors of the paper argue that the evaluation of such applications should follow the criteria established by those research or funding organisations that also organise the evaluation of research funding. For the next stage in implementing the proposed funding process, the discussion paper specifically recommends involving representatives from scientific societies that publish scientific journals, in order to better estimate the required budget and how to shape the application procedure. A national pilot project should be launched to test the new procedure. The experts also suggest initiating an international working group to establish supranational co-financing.
Publications in the series “Leopoldina Discussion” are contributions by the authors named. With its discussion papers, the Academy offers researchers the opportunity to provide thought-provoking impulses, stimulate discourse and formulate recommendations flexibly and without a formal working group process. The theses and recommendations contained in discussion papers thus do not reflect the official positions of the Leopoldina.
The discussion paper was written by members of the working group “The future of scientific publishing”. The working group includes experts from the fields of physics, chemistry, biochemistry, mathematics, electrochemistry, materials science, evolutionary biology, bioinformatics, history, scientific research, ecology, and economics. The working group spokesperson is Professor Dr Diethard Tautz.