Michael Mabe, Caveat Auctor: Let the author beware, Serials, March 2004. Only the abstract is free online: "The author argues that the fundamental philosophical tenet of open access (OA) is a noble one: that all information should be free at the point of use. However, some of the assumptions behind the drive to OA should be questioned. For example: do authors really want everyone to read their articles? Does the general public have an unsatisfied thirst for the arcane thoughts of the academy? Moreover, the economics of the OA model are open to challenge. The traditional publishing business model has developed over 300 years and is self-sustaining, insulates academic deliberations from economic issues and ensures the long-term availability and preservation of published information."
(PS: Mabe is the Director of Academic Relations at Elsevier. My short reply: the rationale of OA is to make research available to all who can make use of it. It's irrelevant to point out that some people have no use for it. As for the highly-evolved business model of subscription-based journals: after long, painful, firsthand experience, universities are disagreeing. In January, the University of California Academic Senate called it "incontrovertibly unsustainable".)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 3/21/2004 05:17:00 PM.
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.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
