Richard Charkin on free information vs freedom of information

Richard Charkin, CEO of Macmillan Nature, sent this post from a Blackberry at Bangalore airport. Nature has a blog (http://blogs.nature.com/wp/nascent) debating this subject. Peer-reviewed journals such as Nature differ in intent from Prospect, which is primarily a journal of opinion, but we both exist to disseminate high level views, which may or may not be empirical, in as objective a fashion as possible (which is different from claiming to only publish objective views). In the case of Nature and other scientific journals, the emphasis necessarily must rest with fact and evidence-based views and debate. The internet, if unfiltered, does not apply the checks, balances and context which this often high-octane information requires. It may thus be seen as the Philosopher's Stone or Tower of Babel. What price a labrador in the land of the blind?

Over to Richard:

The Internet has dramatically impacted the world of scientific publishing. Nearly all library research, editing, reviewing, selecting and distributing takes place electronically. At Nature Publishing group (npg.nature.com) for instance 95% of research articles are submitted and reviewed electronically. 90% of the articles are read via the Internet. 50% of revenue is unambiguously electronic and growing fast. Readership of scientific papers has dramatically increased by virtue of the much-improved access. In the past a scientist would have to trek to the library, search paper indexes and wait while the relevant (and sometimes irrelevant) paper was discovered. That process now takes seconds in the comfort of the lab or home. It is also more comprehensive and effective, particularly as most scientific journals are indexed by Medline (medline.cos.com) and references are linked through a collaboration of publishers, CrossRef (www.crossref.org ). All science publishers offer all current publications to scientists worlwide. In addition they are all investing in the conversion of their archives of past research to ensure that previous discoveries are not lost.

No other industry (except perhaps pornography) has adapted its processes and business models to the digital world so rapidly and efficiently. Interestingly this transformation has happened without government encouragement, support or subsidy. Customer and business imperatives drove the change.

In parallel there is a groundswell of opinion supporting the 'open access' movement (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access). The ideology of open access is that scientific research information should be available to all at no cost. There are various models. Philanthropy supports the excellent journal PLoS Biology (biology.plosjournals.org. Research funders such as the Wellcome Foundation (www.wellcome.ac.uk ) offer to pay for their research papers to be published provided the publisher distributes the articles free electronically. Some funders may make open access publication mandatory for research funded by them.

So far there has been rather more noise than action. Only a very small proportion of articles is published this way but the evangelists of open access certainly tell a good story and have accumulated some high-level support.

The idea of free information is undeniably attractive, particularly where the information (for instance developments in medicine) is for the public good.

Unfortunately, free information can be sub-standard (compare free magazines and newspapers with the 'real thing'). It can also be associated with propaganda - think Soviet Russia where books were almost given away and I don't suppose many of the copies of Mao's Little Red Book were ever purchased as opposed to donated.

Of course it is legitimate to demand good value for information and publishers need to deliver ever better services as well as affordable prices. Nature is available on over 8 million desktops at an average cost of 50p per annum amazing value for the world's leading scientific publication.

Market forces rather than producer-driven policies have traditionally led to progress. The scientific information business is no exception. There is room for many business models which will compete in the marketplace and survive or fail. Successful businesses will experiment and innovate.

But we should not assume that giving away information is morally superior to selling it, nor that free information is necessarily an improvement on freedom of information.

Richard Charkin (see charkinblog.macmillan.com for more of his comment on life, the universe and publishing).

Comments

[Forone]

Before you consign this chat to oblivion, let me say I didn't raise the issue of advertising as an impediment or censor but as a potential facilitator of free online content - maybe a little snide about the potential conflict of interest between a scientific publisher and sci-business advertiser. "Slate" might be a successful model in the opinion sector. More interesting here, re completely free to read peer-reviewed scientific publishing, I just learned of a new venture, "PLoS ONE"
www.plosone.org/
which apparently charges the author(s) directly for publication - seems like a refreshingly transparent approach. One would hope corporate sponsors who ultimately pay the publication fee will be identified.

[John Kelly]

Freemium - that's the word I was looking for . . .

Thanks Balaji - let's call it an honourable draw! You are right to hold strong views about open access and open source and I take your points very seriously.

But before we nail this topic in its coffin and send it south where it deserves to rest, I thought you might be interested to know that there is a ghastly web 2.0 term for free services such as Linux which rely for their business model on the probability that mortals will need to buy add-ons. The ghastly neologism 'freemium' derives from free and premium. Although Wikipedia claims it was 'coined' as recently as March 2006 by a 'venture capitalist Fred Wilson' the term has been extant since 1988 when it referred to the marketing ploy of giving away a free personalised pen or address labels, for example, as a 'premium' to both demonstrate the goods and entice the receiver into placing an order for more.

Now that's what I call perigrinetic pedantry!

All the best, John

[John Kelly]

Dear Angel
Prospect should get more advertising than it does, and if it did, we'd use it to fund more investigative articles, as opposed to sybaritic premises. I'd like to carry more messages about the environment too. John

[Angel Bacon]

A quick peek at advertising agency budgets ( let alone the alleged chamomile tea habits of their staff ) will confirm that advertising is frequently more successful than not .

It is to Prospect's credit that it exercises caution with regard to whom it snuggles up - rather than risk losing respect by association - it's halo of authority being assumed on an
' as seen in Prospect ' notion ...

Indiscriminate co-habitation can dilute the brand. The crowd don't like it - and trust in the messenger can be diminished .

An extreme example might be : the daytime television personality employed to invite potentially vulnerable viewers to re-mortgage their homes ..

Heaven for fend that Prospect HQ gets moved to a pee-stained soggy cardboard box . However , it remains essential that Prospect advertising space appears, and is sold at a price that reflects, the elitist privilege that it is . Most preferably to those now firmly committed to environmental responsibility on a universal basis ?

[Balaji Ravichandran]

I shouldn't have used the word 'perfect'. I do apologise, especially because I know, and agree that the examples I used were not perfect. That, however, does not invalidate my underlying argument, and the premises on which the argument was constructed.

[John Kelly]

Dear Balaji

Pedantry aside, I really need to draw your attention to an inconsistency in your last comment. In support of your argument, you state: 'I never claimed my examples to be 'perfect,' as he so insists.'
You did. In your earlier comment, to which I responded, you stated:
'Forget open-access publishing for a moment, and look at open-source software and web 2.0 for perfect examples.'

I took the time to rigorously respond to your 'perfect examples' precisely because they were far from perfect.

John

[Balaji Ravichandran]

I think Kelly's response to both my comments verges on the peregrinating pedantic. Also note that I never claimed my examples to be 'perfect,'as he so insists. My fundamental argument questions the notion that accountability and credible information comes always at a cost - I think that is illogical.

Britannica is a paid subscription information. Nature's own analysis found that it was as deeply flawed as Wikipedia and is more subject to the bias inherent in its contributors (expert ones, that is). Wikipedia at least lets its users correct its articles on a regular basis. To suggest that its users, often being non-experts, cannot write worthy articles verges on intellectual and academic snobbery, to which again, I don't subscribe, not least because I'm no expert in anything (really) - but, if one says to me that that invalidates any of my arguments, I would question if the person in question is really in search of truth or knowledge.

Yes, I'm idealistic. To aim for the ideal need not necessarily lack pragmatism. And idealism and pragmatism are not mutually exclusive. I believe one can be practical, and equally aspire to be idealistic.

Finally, being a capitalist myself (hard to believe? But true), I understand why Kelly asserts that information should come at a cost. Nor do I have a problem with journals like Nature which 'sell' their information. But, the logic of their extension to noble aspirations of the open-access movement is deeply flawed. The astute and intelligent reader can distinguish between what is good and reliable and what is trash - whether the information comes at a cost or it is free. After all, magazines like Heat, Ok and Hello are all 'sold' in much the same way as Prospect and Economist, are they not? And are the celebrity gossips in the former so reliable and informative as to undermine the gossips read free of cost on bloggers' website?

Again, to repeat myself, I do not think accountability must necessarily, and I stress, necessarily, come at a cost.

[John Kelly]

Regarding Forone's comment about advertising impinging upon freedom of information, I can only observe that Prospect cheerfully carries advertising from various corporates (not as much as I'd like, to be honest) in the certain understanding that we are equally likely to criticise them and their industries whether or not they choose to support our publication. It would arguably be more immoral and censorious to refuse to allow some advertisers and not others. I intervened to ban classified advertising from escort agencies (unlike some 'highbrow' magazines I could care to mention) after complaints by readers that the 'services' might be illegal and cause distress to their providers. But neither banning nor allowing advertising would necessarily reflect our editors' views - even though I abhor prostitution as a form of slavery I respect the contrary view that the right to do what one likes with one's body is a freedom.

Intelligent folk shouldn't be afraid of advertising. I haven't seen an ad. so hypnotic that it compelled me to do as it exhorted. We reserve the right to vet and refuse ads which obviously offend or clearly bend the truth. We also tend not to place ads next to articles which refer to their companies, products or arguments (unlike some oither publications, granted). I'd agree that this verges on 'advertorial' - which we'd carry but clearly label as such.

So when and if Pfizer or anyone else advertises in Nature or sponsors research, it is clearly attempting to influence an elite favourably towards its products, but surely fully aware that the audience has enough knowledge and discrimination to recognise this and weigh it in the balance. I personally or professionally don't have a problem with that: in fact I approve.

I am rather fond of loony ads from barmy but incredibly wealthy cults, exotic deposed monarchs, power-crazed oligarchs, mad pressure groups or job ads for the CIA which sadly we don't get offered but which appear from time to time in the FT and Economist. We rather hope our discriminating readers would have a good laugh but would be highly unlikely to join up. Perhaps that's why we don't get offered them . . . .

[John Kelly]

In response to Balaji's second comment, and at the risk of repeating myself, Richard Charkin demonstrated no bias due to his position as CEO of Nature, nor did he hide his status. Equally, though I can't speak for Richard, whatever views the editors of the journal Nature may hold or may be perceived to hold regarding the open access movement, it would be unlikely if the CEO would interfere or influence the views of his editors as a matter of principle and practice. Serious publishing really doesn't work that way. Promise.

From my personal and unaliged perspective, there is a strong logical case to view most, not necessarily all, free published content to be less rigorous than paid: lack of accountability is different from restricted freedom of expression but can be just as obfuscatory. The 'perfect' example of Wikipedia is a case in point. Apparently I'm the Publisher of American Prospect. While it may be the case that I have an exact namesake in the US who publishes a small intellectual magazine, I doubt it. Wikipedia is great fun, performs a wonderful service for kids and generalists, but on the strength of this trivial example alone, I wouldn't bet my life on its unerring accuracy.

Prospect editors use a variety of paid and unpaid resources, from Lexis Nexis, Bloomberg, Thomson Dialog to OECD, World Bank, CIA Factbook (an oxymoron if ever there was one) The Economist Intelligence Unit (ditto) and sometimes even 'phone a friend' to factcheck and cross refer contentious items of information. We pay for these services and we pay our people to give our readers something approaching accuracy. We'd get sued if we didn't. I can't speak for Nature, BMJ or the New England Journal of Medicine but I guess they do the same - unless the BMJ has gone Hollywood.

Without belabouring the point, Balaiji's second 'perfect' example is not quite so cut and dried. Linux, in one guise or another, may or may not overtake Windows or MacIntosh as an operating system, but not unless some group adds considerable value in the form of support, distribution, user interface, manuals and promotion. Unless alchemy is accepted as a science, this will cost money. I am old enough to remember the hideous days of CP/M, Unix/Xenix and CLI, out of which arose MS Dos when IBM produced the first PC. Unix was and is open source. Kermit, which preceded the World wide web, was and is open source. The world of computers would be restricted to an academic and scientific elite were these scary, hairy and wobbly operating systems and protocols the only way for machines to communicate or operate. The fact that some übernerds chose to 'monetise' open source programs and make them available at arguably a fair price to the masses who couldn't and wouldn't code does not invalidate their contribution to enabling the information society, even if they became distastefully rich in the process with a tendency towards wearing turtleneck sweaters.

Turning to another 'perfect' example: Google was and is, a 'free' resource. Firefox may or may not be 'superior' but the evidence is that 84% of searches are conducted using Google. We pay by eyeballing ads and having our searches 'ranked.' Firefox uses Google algorithms, I believe.

I deeply respect Balaji's points and zeal in making them, understand his broader message but don't subscribe to his idealism. I am personally an advocate of open source, especially in cases of scientific urgency, such as HIV/Aids and DNA research - incidentally, Craig Venter added 'value' to public domain DNA genome mapping research - which had trundled along at vast cost to the public purse without reaching a workable conclusion. His businesslike processes arguably moved the science on by a decade, and he made a shedload of cash in doing so. Was this right or wrong? I don't know. I'd have to read Nature to get the argument in perspective, or the interview with Venter last year in Prospect for that matter (pace vested interests). I'd need to pay a small price for that information, which probably cost a lot of money to aggregate and edit. I'm paying proper money to host this blog, as it happens.

There really is no such thing as free information or free research: somebody pays, or has paid, somewhere. This does not imply that free is necessarily inferior to paid, merely that in publishing and entertainment, the likelihood is that higher value commands a higher price. Market capitalism may or may not be a good thing, but so far the alternatives have proved far less conducive to freedom of thought and expression. Pravda and Izvestia were very cheap. As Richard Charkin said, The Thoughts of Chairman Mao were free from the Chinese Legation. I've still got my copy. I don't remember getting past the first couple of pages . . .

[Balaji Ravichandran]

I think I need to make some points clear.

1. I was not attacking or charging Richard Charkin for having deliberately concealed his connections with Nature. I was only stating my opinion that his article should have explicitly stated the competing interest, for the readers who do not know the publishing policies of Nature, and of the open-access movement, and the possible bias against open-access may not be immediately visible. Nature, as a journal, has been always biased against the open-access movement - I'm an avid reader (and a fan) of Nature, so, I can state this with confidence.

2. You suggest my competing interest invalidates my argument? My argument does not come in my capacity as the editor of studentBMJ. Charkin's does. That alone validates it. And, if you see BMJ archives, I have always argued for open-access than against it.

3. You think that there is no basis to suggest open-access content is morally superior. But, when Kelly suggests that there is a strong case for free content to be sub-standard, can't you see that both the premise, and therefore the conclusion becomes illogical? Forget open-access publishing for a moment, and look at open-source software and web 2.0 for perfect examples. See the number of people using Wikipedia, and the number switching over to Firefox, both of which are considered far superior to conventional subscription-based services. And, if the web gurus are to be believed, Linux will probably over-take Windows and Mac.

4. Let me clearly state that I'm not against subscription-based services. Else, I won't be subscribed to three magazines, including Nature and Prospect. In much the same way as Kelly suggests that open-access does not deserve its morally superior overtone, I don't think subscription-based services are always accountable. Quite on the contrary. But, to suggest that accountability cannot come free is to undermine what philosophy and knowledge, in their truest and fullest sense, stand for.

[Sean Swan]

Surely in one major sense the digital revolution has facilitated bot 'free information' and 'freedom of information', namely the simple fact that a doc photo or even film can be infinitely replicated for free.

In the past one would first have had to have access to the physical document and then physically copied it by photocopying etc. Surely this simple fact tends towards the democratisation of information?

[Forone]

I think framing the issue of scientific publishing entirely as one of "free" to readers versus reader-paid subscription isn't reflective of practice on the internet, where the usual business calculus involves the potential for advertising. The latter could be unsavory for scientific publications since, of course, there is ongoing controversy about industry funding of the research itself and behind the scenes industry interference in what is submitted for publication in the first place. Would Mr. Charkin throw up his hands in shock at the very idea of "free" access with a Pfizer ad next to the article? (Those with free time and the stomach for a naive American preoccupation with "monetizing" internet distribution can listen to the "This Week in Law" podcast on use and abuse of RSS feeds: http://www.twit.tv/twil

[John Kelly]

I must defend Richard Charkin on the puzzling charge that he did not declare his 'competing' interest, especially since I introduced him as CEO of MacMillan Nature Publishing on the first line of his post. This somewhat invalidates Balaji's later comments, espoecially since he declares his interest as a contributor to the BMJ, which was a paid subscription journal last time I looked.

Richard Charkin's view, which is that fredom of information is not the same as free information, cuts to the heart of the debate about whether untramelled data masquerading as fact is preferable to edited content, presented in accessible formats.

I didn't read Richard Charkin's piece as asserting that free information was necessarily sub-standard in comparison to the paid variety, but I'd tend to agree if that was what he'd said. Accountability usually has a price: peer reviewed processes need to be paid for in some form, whether by a publicly funded university network, a privately endowed trust or indeed sponsorship from a professional association such as the BMJ, which has a quasi-compulsory membership requirement as the basis of its funding, as far as I recall. Google is funded by increasingly intrusive and monopolistic advertising. Jean-Noel Jeanneney, President of France's Bibliotheque National, has written a book 'Google and the Myth of Universal Knowledge' which discusses some of these points better than I can.

I don't think open access deserves its 'morally superior overtone', in other words, since it might be based on false economics. I don't think publishers should subsidise Google or be expected to provide a free service either. Quality will inevitably plummet. But I certainly think it unfair to attack Richard for not declaring his interest when he patently did nothing of the sort. John

[Richard Charkin]

It was perfectly clear, line one, that I am CEO of Macmillan Nature so I don't understand the implication that I was concealing my connection with Nature.
I shall ask a colleague to respond on the specific details of Nature's policies in poorer countries etc.
I did not say that free information IS sub-standard but that it CAN be.
And finally, all citizens can have access to all published materials and a sustainably funded scientific publishing community is a guarantee of that. Freedom to read is a fundamental of a free society but it doesn't necessarily have to be free to purchase. We pay for water, for energy, for food. Why should information be perceived as less valuable than hese commodities?

[Balaji Ravichandran]

Leading scientific publications require authors to declare their competing interests (financial or otherwise) at the end of each paper or article. The policy is not restricted to research articles alone, but to opinion pieces as well. Naturally, Nature and its associated journals do this as well. Personally, I would have been more satisfied if Richard Charkin would have declared his. Being the CEO of a publishing industry which 'sells' its articles - biomedical or physical - it is only natural that he views open-access ventures like PLoS and BioMed Central with an eye of scepticism.

But such a scepticism is not warranted, as I see no inherent conflict between free information and freedom of information, for implicit in his argument lies the premise that the latter comes at the expense of the former. Consider, for example, the BMJ (for which I work, and hence a competing interest) and the NEJM. Neither offer completely free access to their full contents - but do so after a period of restrictions; a year in case of BMJ and 6 months in case of NEJM. But, both offer completely free access to developing nations from the day of online publication. Nature does neither. They remain perenially restricted, even for some developing countries, with the exception of the HINARI initiative.

Charkin's other contention that free information is sub-standard is equally false. Afterall, one cannot doubt the quality of NEJM or of the BMJ. And even beyond scientific publishing, Nature's own analysis found that Wikipedia was on par with Encyclopedia Britannica.

Open access may seem modish, but it does have a morally superior overtone to it, particularly when much of the research that is being published is, directly or indirectly, funded by the public, and they therefore have every right to access the information that comes from the money they pay.