Björn Brembs

***or: how journals are like 1930s Rolls Royce Phantom IIs***

Recently, the "German Science and Humanities Council" (Wissenschaftsrat)
has issued their "[Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic
Publishing: Towards Open
Access](https://www.wissenschaftsrat.de/download/2022/9477-22_en.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=11)".
On page 33 they write that increasing the competition between publishers
is an explicit goal of current transformative agreements:

> publishers become publication service providers and enter into
> competition with other providers

This emphasis on competition refers back to the simple fact that as
content (rather than service) providers, legacy publishers currently
enjoy monopolies on their content, as, e.g., the European Commission has
long recognized: In at least two market analyses, one dating as far back
as
[2003](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m3197_en.pdf)
and one from
[2015](https://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m7476_20150331_20310_4221794_EN.pdf),
the EC acknowledges the lack of a genuine market due to the lack of
substitutability:

> it is rare that two different publications can be viewed as perfect
> substitutes, as there are differences in the coverage,
> comprehensiveness and content provided. Therefore, in terms of
> functional interchangeability, two different publications could hardly
> be regarded as substitutable by the end-users, the readers. On that
> basis, the Commission found that consumers will rarely substitute one
> publication for another following a change in their relative prices

or

> Publications for different academic subjects are clearly not
> substitutable from the reader's point of view. Even within a given
> discipline, there may be little demand side substitution from the
> point of view of the individual academic between different
> publications.

As this lack of substitutability is one of the main sources of the
[problems associated with academic
publishing](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2019/10/scholarship-has-bigger-fish-to-fry-than-access/)
today, not just the German WR, but many initiatives around the globe see
increased competition among publishers as key to moving forward.

As much as these aspects appear uncontroversial to the point that one
can find similar wordings in many different texts on the topic, what
seems to be lacking from many of these texts is one crucial aspect of
the practical consequences of competition: procurement rules demand that
tenders be held for products and services above a certain value.

Traditionally, the products of publishers have been exempt from such
rules by the "single/sole source exemption": because the journals sold
by the publishers constitute monopolies, there is no substitutability,
no competition and hence no way to organize a tender. All of this
changes, of course, once the goal is to transform academic publishing
into a market with substitutability and hence, competition, as per the
public statements in the documents surrounding many "transformative
agreements". Once there is substitutability and the value of the
transaction exceeds a given limit, procurement rules mandate tenders.

Heeding their assessment of academic publishing as a conglomerate of
monopolies if it is based on content, rather than services, the EC opted
for a tender when they became a customer with academic publishing needs.
The result of this tender is "[Open Research
Europe](https://open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu/)" a platform where
EU-funded researchers publish for free. Clearly, procurement rules would
demand that all institutions follow the example of the EC and stop their
negotiations with publishers and hold analogous tenders instead.

One may argue that authors ought to be able to choose their publication
venue and I agree, of course. there should not be any restrictions on
the choice of publication venue. However, arguably, this does not
necessarily entail that the public purse must reimburse authors for even
their most extravagant publication choices, if reasonable substitutes
exist.

An analogy may help explain the argument: In many areas of science,
transportation is needed for small groups of students and faculty to do
field research. According to procurement rules, a tender would be
organized and the award may, for instance, go to a company that sells
electric vans, seating seven passengers and a driver, and offers a ten
year warranty. Many would probably agree that the cost of some tens of
thousands \$/€ for each van is reasonable, given the functionality of
the vans and their climate-friendly propulsion. Faculty, however, claim
that because these vans do not carry enough prestige, each van must
instead be replaced with eight [1930s Rolls Royce Phantom
II](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II), such as this
one:

<figure class="wp-block-image size-large">
<img
src="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-1024x557.jpg"
class="wp-image-2404" loading="lazy" decoding="async"
srcset="https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-1024x557.jpg 1024w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-300x163.jpg 300w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-768x418.jpg 768w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-1536x835.jpg 1536w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-2048x1114.jpg 2048w, https://bjoern.brembs.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2022/03/1933_Rolls-Royce_Phantom_II_Continental-50x27.jpg 50w"
sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" width="1024" height="557" />
</figure>

Without such prestige, the faculty argue, they cannot work, risk their
careers and funding. Arguments that these ancient vehicles are
[unreliable, unaffordable and
dysfunctional](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2019/10/scholarship-has-bigger-fish-to-fry-than-access/)
are brushed away by emphasizing that their academic freedom allows them
to drive whatever vehicle they want to their field work. Moreover, they
argue, the price of around one million is "[very
attractive](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2020/11/are-natures-apcs-outrageous-or-very-attractive/)"
because of the prestige the money buys them.

With this analogy, it becomes clear why and how tenders protect the
public interest against any individual interests. In this analogy, it is
likely also clear that academic freedom does not and should not trump
all other considerations. In this respect, I would consider the analogy
very fitting and have always argued for such a balance of public and
researcher interests: [academic freedom does not automatically exempt
academics from procurement
rules.](https://bjoern.brembs.net/2018/09/does-academic-freedom-entail-exemption-from-spending-rules/)

Therefore, [ten experts
advocate](https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5526634) a ban on all
negotiations with publishers and, instead, advocate policies that ensure
that all publication services for public academic institutions must be
awarded by tender, analogous the the example set by Open Research Europe
and analogous to how all other, non-digital infrastructure contracts are
awarded.


<em>
 <strong>
  or: how journals are like 1930s Rolls Royce Phantom IIs
 </strong>
</em>
Recently, the “German Science and Humanities Council” (Wissenschaftsrat) has issued their “Recommendations on the Transformation of Academic Publishing: Towards Open Access”. On page 33 they write that increasing the competition between publishers is an explicit goal of current transformative agreements:  This emphasis on competition refers back to the simple fact

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

Why publication services must not be negotiated