Paris

One of the world's largest research charities, the UK-based Wellcome Trust, has lent its support to calls for 'open access' to the scientific literature.

A report to be released by Wellcome this week — An Economic Analysis of Scientific Research Publishing — says that the current system of thousands of subscription journals “does not operate in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by a commercial market intent on improving its market position”. In the report, the trust announces that it will allow scientists that it funds to use their grants to pay author charges required by open-access journals.

In a separate statement, the trust also pledged its support for online journals, such as those of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), which will test alternatives to the 'reader pays' model of most research journals, which charge readers or libraries for subscriptions. Such open-access journals aim to transfer all publishing costs up front as a 'dissemination' fee paid by authors or their institutions, with papers then being made available free online.

“As a funder of research, we are committed to ensuring that the results of the science we fund are disseminated widely and are freely available to all,” says Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust. “Unfortunately, the distribution strategies currently used by publishers prevent this.”

One of the obstacles to adoption of the alternative models may be scientists' reluctance or inability to pay dissemination fees — often around $1,500 — when they can publish for free in subscription journals. By endorsing the use of its research grants to pay such fees, the trust is supporting the idea that publication costs should generally be included as part of overheads on research spending.

The US-based Howard Hughes Medical Institute has already agreed to provide its investigators with up to $3,000 each in 2004 to cover open-access dissemination fees. In its report, Wellcome calls on other funding bodies to adopt similar policies. “The fundamental point is that as a research funder we have to question whether it is right that we, and others, are in the position of having to pay to read the results of the research that we fund,” says Walport.