Rethinking science: The challenges and opportunities of the open access transformation

Professor Dr Dr h.c. Klaus M. Schmidt on his Open Science experiences

Photo: © Laura Schnitzer

I’ll perhaps start with a provocative question: if we assume that the major economics journals are predominantly published by large publishing groups such as Elsevier, Springer Nature or Wiley, with whom DEAL agreements already exist – doesn’t that mean that the issue of open access is largely over? In your view, is there still a need for action for further transformations?

KS: I think that we are still a long way from reaching our goal. First of all, not all important economic journals are published by the major publishers. In fact, many of the leading journals were founded by specialist associations or universities. For example, the American Economic Association publishes several prestigious journals, as does the Royal Economic Society. Universities such as Harvard with the Quarterly Journal of Economics or the University of Chicago with the Journal of Political Economy also play an important role. These publications are independent of the major publishers and offer a successful model that – even if it is not open access – enables moderate prices and therefore broad access.

The second point is that we have not succeeded in breaking up the oligopoly of the major publishers. They continue to dominate the magazine market. Our libraries continue to pay enormous sums of money to these three publishers, who generate very high returns on sales but often offer a comparatively poor service. If we want to break up this oligopoly, we need more competition. This means that we need to found and promote new journals in order to create alternatives to the established journals. A key aspect here is that the major publishers often sell their journals as bundles. Libraries can rarely do without individual journals, even if they offer little added value to them. Libraries and the DEAL consortium should insist that they can deselect individual journals, thereby reducing their costs and freeing up resources to fund new journals.

Against this background, the question arises: If we want to promote more diversity and bibliodiversity in the publication market, how can a new journal that is founded today build up sufficient reputation? After all, many doctoral students publish where their supervisors recommend – and these are rarely new, less established journals. How do you see the practical realisation of such diversity?

KS: It is indeed a very arduous process, no question about it. Let me give you an example from my own experience. At the end of the 1990s, I was one of the editors of the European Economic Review when it was still the journal of the European Economic Association. The rights to the European Economic Review belonged to Elsevier. Elsevier had drastically increased the price that libraries had to pay for the journal, so the board of the EEA, together with the editors of the EER, decided to separate from Elsevier and set up a new, separate journal, the Journal of the European Economic Association. That was a tough battle. It took ten years to establish the new journal. It was particularly difficult to convince the libraries – especially in the USA – to include this new journal in their portfolio. If a journal is not available at American universities, it is very difficult to convince potential authors to publish their papers in this journal. In the meantime, the Journal of the European Economic Association has an excellent reputation and is considered one of the three best journals in Europe, but it has been a long road.

Today, the possibility of open access facilitates this process. If access to a journal is possible worldwide free of charge, authors do not have to worry about whether their publications are accessible in libraries. Nevertheless, building a reputation remains a central problem. One option is for specialist associations to found new journals or upgrade existing ones and recruit renowned experts for the editorial board. The American Economic Association has done this very successfully with the “American Economic Journals”. When top people are involved as editors, this gives a new journal credibility and prestige. Another option, albeit a difficult one, is for the editors of established journals to break away from large publishers such as Elsevier and launch a new open access journal. Even if it takes time to build up the impact factor of the new journal, the professional community could quickly recognise and support the new journal due to its well-known editors and published articles.

Two follow-up questions come to mind: In your opinion, what would be sustainable funding models for new open access journals in economics? If, as you outlined, editors break away from a publisher and found a new journal – how can it be ensured in the long term that it will still exist in ten years’ time?

KS: There are various financing models. One model is “Sponsored Open Access”, in which a specialist association finances the journal through membership fees and thus ensures its long-term existence. Established association magazines such as the American Economic Review or the Economic Journal could be transferred to open access in this way. With the elimination of print editions and the reduced importance of traditional journal marketing for open access journals, the costs of publication will fall considerably. This makes the financial outlay for specialist associations manageable, and some are already active in this area. The Verein für Socialpolitik, for example, will transfer the German Economic Review and Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik to Sponsored Open Access from January 2025 onwards. Sponsorship can also be provided by a state institution such as the German Research Foundation or the Max Planck Society, or by a university or research institute.

Another important question concerns the distribution of costs. There is the option of a diamond open access model, in which neither authors nor readers pay, but funding is provided by the state, library consortia or learned societies. Alternatively, the costs could also be borne by the authors, either in the form of article processing charges for publication or as a submission fee for the peer review process. The argument in favour of submission fees is that the main added value of a journal today is that it evaluates publications and gives them a seal of quality by including them in the journal. This external validation is the decisive reason why authors do not simply publish their work online themselves, but want to publish in reputable journals.  

Does this mean that authors should pay for the peer review process?

KS: Yes. In my view, there is a lot to be said in favour of regulating the financing of journals via submission fees.

But the money would not go to the peer reviewers, but to the scientific society or another publishing institution that needs it, for example, to cover operating costs such as hosting fees and other necessary expenses?

KS: Correct. The costs have to be borne by someone in order to ensure the operation and sustainability of the journal. I think it’s important that we talk openly about these funding models and don’t dismiss every discussion about financial aspects with the argument that everything has to be free. The peer review of scientific papers requires a considerable amount of time. That is why a certain amount of compensation could also be useful for peer reviewers. Some journals already offer small incentives, such as $100 honoraria, to ensure timely peer review and avoid delays. Such incentives can make a difference. We should discuss this without ideological blinkers.

Do you think financial incentives in the region of 100 dollars are appropriate, given that reviewers could use their time for other purposes, such as working on their own publications?

KS: The 100 dollars are certainly disproportionate to the amount of work that a comprehensive peer review requires. Nevertheless, the system works because most of the incentives for reviewers are not of a financial nature. Many volunteer because it gives them an early insight into the latest developments in their field. In addition, many reviewers want to attract positive attention from publishers, which benefits their own careers in the long term. The financial incentive of 100 dollars can help to prioritise reviews, for example when it comes to completing a referee report on time. Ultimately, it is an empirical question as to which remuneration model works best. But overall, this is more of a side issue compared to the fundamental challenges of the publication system.

How can young researchers who are under pressure to publish in renowned journals be motivated to publish their work in as yet unknown new journals?

KS: That is indeed a problem. The reputation of a journal plays a decisive role for young scientists, not only the impact factor, but also the general reputation. This will not change in the short term. However, in order to strengthen the reputation of new journals, established researchers could publish there in a targeted manner to send a signal. When respected researchers publish their work in new journals, this encourages others to follow suit. This has worked well for the Journal of the European Economic Association.

You’ve already mentioned that a transformation requires a lot of patience and often takes a long time. What advice would you give to editors who are thinking about transforming their magazine?

KS: This is not a project that should be rushed into. I already mentioned the example of the European Economic Review. We faced considerable challenges there, including legal disputes with Elsevier, who threatened us with a lawsuit and did not pay the editors for two years. It was a difficult and stressful time, mainly because we approached the matter naively at the beginning. As publishers, we only had contracts with Elsevier, but not with the European Economic Association. These contracts stated that we were obliged to act in the interests of the journal. Elsevier argued that our collective resignation had damaged the journal’s reputation and demanded six-figure damages per person. In the end, it didn’t come to a trial, but the legal uncertainty weighed on me for two years. Elsevier is purely profit-orientated. That’s why it’s important to be well prepared, to consult legal advice and to be clear about the possible consequences before taking such steps. But then it is certainly feasible.

What changes have you observed in recent years in the course of the open access transformation in economics? Are there any noticeable effects?

KS: Most certainly. You can see that more and more colleagues are publishing their articles in open access, even if they have to pay additional fees. I have mixed feelings about this development because the additional fees further increase publishers’ profits and come at the expense of our research budgets. At the same time, however, it shows that there is a growing awareness of the importance of free access to scientific work. That is a positive trend. As far as the development of the journal landscape is concerned, many journals now offer an open access option, but so far there are only a few that have switched completely to open access. So there is still a lot to do.

Thank you very much!

The interview was conducted on 10 October 2024 by Dr Doreen Siegfried.

About Prof Dr Dr h.c. Klaus M. Schmidt:

Klaus M. Schmidt is Professor of Economic Theory at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. He is a member and former chairman of the Scientific Advisory Board of the Federal Ministry of Economics and Climate Protection and spokesman for the Collaborative Research Centre/Transregio 190 “Rationality and Competition”. He is also the scientific coordinator of the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meetings in Economics. He is also the designated chairman of the Verein für Socialpolitik. In his research, Schmidt deals with game theory, contract theory and behavioural economics and their applications in industrial economics, climate economics and other microeconomic fields of application.  

Contact: https://sites.google.com/view/klaus-m-schmidt/

ORCID-ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5011-0828

LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/klaus-m-schmidt/

ResearchGate: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Klaus-Schmidt-4

to Open Science Magazine