Iain Stevenson, 'Open access' is for the rich only, a letter to the editor in the Times Higher Education Supplement, January 9, 2003 (online access only for subscribers). The argument is clear from the title, but here's an excerpt: "Open access is fine if the article authors have grant funds to pay the publication charge likely in science and medicine but very unlikely in social sciences and humanities, let alone for aspiring authors in any field in poorer countries."
(PS: This is rapidly becoming the most common objection to OA journals. It's completely understandable but completely answerable. Unfortunately, both the funding model for OA journals, and the answer to this objection, are fairly complicated, at least more complicated than this simple, even simplistic, objection. So I worry that mere clarity won't suffice. We have to work hard to counter the spread of this meme. Some quick advice. Stop using the phrase "author fees" for fees that are usually paid by funders or employers. Talk about fee waivers in every description of the funding model. Talk about OA journals without fees. Talk about the differences among the disciplines, and that while medicine leads the way with OA journals, funding models that work in medicine needn't be the funding models that work in other fields. Talk about the open-ended ways in which OA journals can experiment to cover their expenses. Talk about OA archiving, which doesn't face any of the financial difficulties of OA journals.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 1/09/2004 09:05:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
