Open access in Germany: the best DEAL is no deal

The point is: Much of our scientists' reseach is at least partly funded by the taxpayer. So are our universities. (Private schools and universities are pretty rare in Germany.) So why would the taxpayer first fund the research, and then be forced to pay a second time in order to buy back findings that wouldn't even exist without his help? This is the actual reasoning behind German universities' demands, and that's why they're unlikely to give in. Whether or not this is successful in the long run will also depend on how many other countries will join the movement, and how many researchers we can convince to publish their results openly. To be sure, there will be a certain transition period which may be tough on our scientists. But then again, coupling public funding to a commitment to publish all results openly could also be a convincing argument. That will probably be the next step, and I'm pretty sure it will gain momentum fast. My guess is that in a few years, open access platforms will have acquired impact factors that are comparable to today's prestigious journals. Simply because the latter fail to realize that they're no longer indispensable in the digital age. They're clinging to an obsolete business model - and they know it.

If someone asked behind the strategy of the 'Big Five', those academic publishers which control over 80% of the 10b US$ global market of academic journals, we would know more about their simple, but smart tactics: Those publishers want to 1) keep their market share and revenues associated with it, 2) add some annual growth to it to let their stakeholders or hedge fonds feel comfortable, 3) make sure that they sustain a strong pipeline of incoming new manuscripts from which (their) editors can reject as much as possible, in order to 4) maintain or further boost the journal impact factors (which still supports the author's standing in the community or increases the chance to win a grant). In the 'old world' of academic publishing of the last century, it was very easy to cope with target 1) and 2): just increase journal pricing annually above the journal attrition rate. Meanwhile, this doesn't work any more. Open Access came up, first considered as a severe threat, however today recognized by major publishers as fantastic opportunity to be adopted as their strategy for the 21st century. Again, it's easy to understand: As a publisher you offer your current subscription package PLUS 'free' open access for some or all of your journals—for the same fee as you got before. Sounds as a great deal for libraries: access to all that stuff PLUS open access. And sounds great for the publishers which have reached instantly their objective 1. And 2), because they ask for a 'little' surcharge, let's call it 'technical charge' or so. And much better: having closed that DEAL, publishers will automatically a strong pipeline of further, new submissions: this means that they will furthermore achieve objective 3) and 4) for nothing! Or more precisely: for YOU having payed that surcharge. Wow, this sounds smart, doesn't it? Not for those which sit on the other side of the table, but for the publishers. The sad news is: for all that money being spend again and again every year in that DEAL, we could achieve 7 or 10 times more open access publications, with full state-of-the-art publishing services, and immediate free access. Now let us ask that question: why do we not recognize that simple but smart strategy? Why do we waste our time to negotiate those DEALs which will cement present budgets for many years, instead of going for that 'flip' which Günther Ziegler had in mind? Do eg some editors still believe in those fancy brands of 'their' journals, owned by big publishers? Or do we believe that we cannot set up easily such an infrastructure which would be required to flip the side of that publishing coin? It would be helpful if those could answer that question which still make us believe that a DEAL is a useful way. I don't believe that at all — it's a dead end and I would felt guilty in wasting public money if I cosidered it anyhow. Opinions?