Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
Vivienne Parry, A toenail in the door, The Guardian, May 6, 2004. Excerpt: "There's a touch of Through the Looking Glass about scientific publishing. In this topsy-turvy world, publishers obtain research results for nothing, have them refereed for nothing, print them in their journal and then - and this is sheer genius - sell the journal (for an arm and a leg) to the institution where the research took place. Make that several legs. The taxpayer or charity donor who footed the research bill can't see what they've paid for unless they too cross the publisher's palm with silver. That can't be right. Nor can it be right that publishers retain copyright on work that should belong to the author. This pernicious system creates knowledge paupers because new knowledge is only available to those with the cash to access it....Why aren't scientists bitching about this? First, because they are reluctant to change a system that has underpinned science since the 17th century. But there's a more fundamental reason....If you work in toenail science and the key journal in your field is the International Journal of Toenail Clippings, that's the journal you have to have, and the one you have to publish in, no matter what the cost (which rarely comes from your own pocket). In the vernacular, it's called 'having one over a barrel'....There are issues on costs and there will be a messy, sometimes bloody, interregnum as science publishing moves to a predominantly open access model. The most plaintive squeaks will come from the learned bodies, which will point to the fine initiatives, such as junior fellowships, made possible by their journal income. The best will develop other revenue streams, the worst will go to the wall. They should recall why they exist. To purvey science. To everyone....The mighty Wellcome Trust has already committed itself to open access and the research charities are bound to follow for they recognise the bang for buck they're getting for their supporters. The concept of a copy for the taxpayer is a compelling one. Science should embrace it wholeheartedly."
|
|||