The role of the Internet as a distributor of digital content is being widely felt by all media. The recent music battle is all but over. Currently, some argue that television and film are learning that “fighting the consumer’s desire for limitless content is a loser’s game” [1].

The print media, including academic journals, are also in the spotlight. Previous research published by the author in this journal [2] referred to a medical web site that allowed participants to share non-open access (NOA) journal articles. That research described the structure of the web site, with more than 125,000 registered users and 300,000 posts in electronic forums. The article explained that the site allowed users with no legitimate access to NOA journals to request required articles from other users. These articles were then found by those users who did have access to them, and the articles were then posted to the web site, so that they could be accessible by any person who visited the web site. These requests and posting occurred in a sub-forum of the web site named “Databases & Journals – Requests and Enquiries.”

Over a six-month period, a total of 6,587 articles had been requested; 5,464 had been returned, and these articles had been viewed by others a mean of 4.47 times. At an estimated mean price of $30.00 per article, this amounted to an estimated loss to these journals of a little over $1.4M.

Although that research was situated in the context of medical and other academic publishing, there appears to be widespread interest in the subject and the issues raised by the article [3].

While the most obvious impact of the file-sharing might be financial, and therefore of concern to the publishing houses, there is far more to a journal than the publisher. A crucial role is played by the editor. Put succinctly, “the editor of a journal is the person responsible for its entire content” [4]. The editor also has an interest in copyright issues, and in the number of readers and number of citings of the journal articles. For this reason, it was determined that the views of the editors on such a file-sharing web site would be important.

This study set out to discover the editors’ views on issues related to the information published in the original article.

A total of 216 (96.4%) participants indicated the geographical location of their journal. The journals were located in 21 countries. Most of the journals were located in the USA (82, 38.0%), the UK (58, 26.9%), the Netherlands (23, 10.7%) and Switzerland (11, 5.1%). Together, these four countries (19% of the total number) accounted for 80.6% of the journals. The dominance by the USA, the UK and the Netherlands is reflected in a similar dominance in the Scopus listing, where 65.9% of all NOA active journals (14,686) are from those three countries (31.9%; 22.4% and 11.6%, respectively).

Other countries with more than one journal represented in the responses were: Germany (8), Australia and Canada (5 each), Italy (4), Sweden (3), Austria, Japan, Norway and Pakistan (2 each). One participant indicated that the journal’s responsibilities were spread across three countries.

While the journal location reflects a Pareto’s rule of 20/80 dominance, the journals are spread internationally. The 21 countries represented in the sample account for 86.4% of the 14,686 NOA active journals listed by Scopus.

A total of 215 (96.0%) participants indicated the subject of their journal. Given the nature of the web site in the previous research, as was expected, the largest category of subject was “Medicine” (67, 31.2%). The next most frequently represented subjects were “Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology” (13); “Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics” (12), “Engineering” and “Multi-Disciplinary” (10 each). In total, medically-related fields accounted for 131 (60.9%) of the journals.

In addition, 13 (6.1%) journals were characterized as “Other.”

Participants were asked about the type of access permitted to their online articles. The question asked was: “Does your journal currently allow non-subscribers free full access to full articles that are online (a non-subscriber is a person who has paid no subscription fee, or professional or other organisation fee of any sort)?” Participants could select all options that applied to their journal. A total of 217 (96.9%) of participants answered this question. Table 1 summarises the results.

Figure 1

Table 1: Full free access permitted to online articles (n = 217). Participants could choose all that applied, so the total of all selections will be greater than n.

As expected (because the sample was drawn from journals that had been accessed through a file-sharing web site), the largest single grouping (68, 31.3%) did not allow any type of open access to their journals. For many of the journals, other types of restricted access are available, including to samples, and 22.6% allowed access to the public after a period of time (an “embargo” period). Under “Other types of access,” participants included through university consortia (which is, in effect, a NOA access), or to residents of a particular country, or for a restricted amount of time, or special issues.

In response to the question on whether they believed that their journal would be OA in the foreseeable future, 213 (95.1%) participants answered the question. Of these, 13 (6.1%) said “Yes,” 162 (76.1%) said “No,” 37 (17.4%) did not know, and one said it was not applicable (as the journal was already open access). This indicates only a very small tendency towards open access, with the vast majority of journals currently intending to remain NOA.

Although editors are usually not involved with the funding of their journal, they have knowledge of the quality of the content, the origin of their authors, and their target audiences. Given the possible impact of the funding model on these [10], it was desirable to know which funding model, if the journal were to be OA, the editors thought would be an appropriate funding model for their journal.

Only 20 participants answered this question. Given the low number of editors who had expected their journal to become open access in the foreseeable future, and the fact that editors are not usually involved in the business side of the journal, this low response is to be expected. The low response rate to this question makes any conclusive statement speculative at best, but the results are presented in Table 2 for the record.

Figure 2

Table 2: Appropriate funding model if the journal were to become OA (n=20)

A total of 215 (96.0%) participants answered the question on whether or not they had been aware of such file-sharing web sites (before being contacted to participate in this survey). A total of 76 (35.4%) indicated that they had been aware of these sites, while 139 (64.6%) had not been. These figures indicate that the phenomenon of file-sharing sites is largely unknown amongst journal editors.

Participants were asked how many such file-sharing sites they believed existed. A total of 203 (90.6%) participants answered the question. Table 3 below summarises their responses.

Figure 3

Table 3: Numbers of such file-sharing sites that editors believe exist (n = 203)

The large number of participants who have no idea of the number of such sites corresponds closely the number of participants (in the previous question) who had not known about this type of site. Expectedly, more participants who had known of such sites estimated a number of sites (28/76) than participants who had not known of such sites (22/139) (95% CI; p <0.001).

The participants were asked what their journal’s response was to such sites. A total of 215 (96.0%) of the participants answered. Their answers are summarised in Table 4 below:

Figure 4

Table 4: Journal’s response to these sites (n = 215). Participants could choose all that applied, so the total of all selections will be greater than n.

From these figures, it is obvious that very few journals are currently prepared to take any action against such site. Under “Other,” however, the majority of the participants indicated that this would be a problem for the publisher, and was not something that would concern editors.

Participants were asked what action the journal or publisher might consider taking when discovering such a site. A total of 200 (89.3%) of the participants answered this question. Their answers are summarised in Table 5 below:

Figure 5

Table 5: Journal’s or publisher’s possible action upon discovering such a sites (n = 200). Participants could choose all that applied, so the total of all selections will be greater than n.

Under “Other,” the majority of the participants said that they did not know, while others indicated that the decision would be taken by the publisher, and would not involve them.

In the last question of the survey, participants were requested to add comments on the subject or any issues relating to it. Seven broad themes emerged

There was a view that editors wished their journals to have as much exposure as possible, and would not wish to restrict access. There was a strong distinction between their academic role (usually unpaid), and the business interests of the publisher. Many editors appear caught between their personal beliefs in access to research, and their obligations to publishers whose journals they edit. Some also pointed out, however, that the final decisions lay not with them but with the publishers, and that it was likely that publishers would want to take action against file-sharing sites.

I think publishers would be more concerned by this than editors… The publisher and other people with a financial interest would probably be more concerned. They might be quietly pleased, though, if they thought about the potential influence on impact factors, etc...

Editors are people interested in the dissemination of high quality research results. Open access is the best situation, however we realize that publishers must get return on investment. We, the editors are not in this for the money!

The editorial board is concerned about the accuracy, scientific merit and quality of what is printed in the journal. Editors are not paid. There is a clear separation of duties between the editorial board and the publisher. Anything to do with the business side of the journal is not my responsibility. If I thought there was a problem I would notify the publisher, but it would be up to them to pursue the matter.

Corresponding to this view, there was a strong feeling in favour open-access amongst the editors. They saw their role as distributors of high-quality information, and any hindrances to this distribution was unwelcome.

The situation whereby readers have to pay a substantial amount for research already completed by others is in my opinion anachronistic and should be changed. We should be moving towards an internet only publication system with the option to download articles as required by a reader. I don’t know who would pay but costs should be considerably lower than they currently are

I would like to see open access but we are a society journal and have a contract with the publisher.

As an academic editor I'm kinda pleased that lots of people might be able to read the material in the journal; I believe in open access to science and in a perfect world it would be freely available to everyone.

I believe all journals should be open access

In a similar light, where the argument was not in favour or pure open access, there was a wish for cheaper rates.

I believe we want to encourage readers to find our information, then make it as painless as possible for them to download as large a volume of information as we can persuade them to take, provided they pay a small incremental fee for the priviledge… If the information is restricted, unavailable, awkward to find, expensive or difficult to purchase, it may as well not be available at all because people will not bother fighting to get it.

I believe the story parallels the music industry. Unless we find a way of providing cheaper services, we will run out of business.

Although a large majority were in favour of open-access, this was not unanimous, with a few expressing strong sentiments against open access in general. Some were concerned about a viable business model for open-access..

When will open access advocates discuss option(s) rather than view they are morally superior!!!! (This view was echoed by the participant in a personal email to author.)

Without subscriptions, the work of scientific editors, peer review, copy editing and long-term archiving cannot be supported. Payment by authors can provide an important conflict of interest for editors in making the decision on what to publish since authors are paying for the right to publish. This damages the peer-review system since there is a financial interest in accepting articles for publication.

How expensive is “open access” for the one who publishes a paper? As long as this option is too expensive, open access will have no future.

I have not seen a business model that makes me think open access if viable on a long-term basis.

Reflecting the balanced view shown in the results in sections 3.7 – 3.9 above, editors were divided on how much of a concern the file-sharing sites were. Some felt that the issue was troubling, while others the file-sharing sites were not much cause for concern. Usually, they felt a lack of concern because online access, or access after a short while, was so widespread.

very worrying re revenue stream

Clearly an important subject, but new to me and needs consideration.

I do not believe such sites are a major issue. Individuals, certainly in first world countries, already have access to almost anything, either from their library, interlibrary loan, or a friend at another university who will email the article.

This is not an issue since we submit papers to PubMed Central 6 months after publication

A small number felt that, whether a financial issue or not, the illegal sharing of such material was unethical.

You are basically asking about theft, in the same realm as down-loading music files

As an Editor, I have no strong objections to a limited number [of] scientists sharing a limited number of papers as well as their thoughts on same on a “closed” web site - something on the order of a web-based seminar group. Wholesale, open posting of copyrighted materials should be vigorously pursued by publishers.

There was also some misunderstanding of open access, with some editors believing that access through intuitions constituted open-access.

Our journal operates an open access policy where authors from subscribing institutions are entitled to free open access publication

I would like to thank the 224 participants in the survey for taking the time to supply the data on which this research is based.