Open Access News

Philosophically, it’s hard to hard to argue with open access. Considering the sizeable investment the public annually makes through its tax dollars, access to the dividends in the form of peer-reviewed scientific literature only makes sense. Currently, as is often pointed out, someone has to pay twice to access the scientific literature....However, it’s just as apparent that open access undermines the prevalent business model of scientific publishers....As the largest purchasers of scientific journals, university libraries stand to gain immensely from open access measures. Due to current budget restraints, many libraries have to pick and choose what journals to carry, limiting the access to the literature of the students and researchers who depend on those libraries. Not being able to access a research article slows down the research process....Paying for open access would require a significant investment of taxpayer money, but only a very small percentage of the population is likely to take advantage of free access to journals....

Understandably, many in the publishing industry are vehemently against such a strong-handed open access measure....Although peer-reviewed journals are arguably much different from popular magazines and newspapers, it would be misleading to say that the models do not exist. Journals can also adapt and save money (and trees) by going to online-only publication, giving them more leeway for a shift into open access models.

A more obscure example of the advantages of open access came in a May 2nd New York Times story on problems with the peer review system in general:

Journals have devolved into information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry, say Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor of BMJ, the British medical journal, and Dr. Richard Horton, the editor of The Lancet, also based in Britain. The journals rely on revenues from industry advertisements. But because journals also profit handsomely by selling drug companies reprints of articles reporting findings from large clinical trials involving their products, editors may "face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest" in deciding whether to publish such a study, Dr. Smith said.

Currently, pharmaceutical companies can, according to this story at least, exert influence on journals through their buying power. In an open access system with flat fees for article publication, though, this advantage is erased, removing one more obstacle to good objective science. This alone is enough of a reason to consider open access, particularly in clinical journals....

The Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006 is clearly a step in the right direction, but it does not address some of these fundamental issues. A more comprehensive approach would rely also on temporary incentives for publishers to move toward an open access model and would idealistically give the publishing industry plenty of time to adapt. If the act is passed, it is imperative that Congress follow up with these other complementary measures. A multifaceted approach by the government, coupled with an innovative and open-minded approach from the publishing industry, could make true open access a reality, an important precursor to making public participation in science more feasible and desirable.

Comment. I just want to respond to one point: "Paying for open access would require a significant investment of taxpayer money, but only a very small percentage of the population is likely to take advantage of free access...." The justification for OA is to benefit reseachers first and lay readers second, or to benefit researchers directly and others indirectly. There's no assumption that every citizen or internet user wants to read peer-reviewed science. Researchers need access to this literature and all too often lack it because journal prices have been rising much faster than inflation and library budgets for more than three decades. Just as patients benefit when their doctors have access to research literature, citizens benefit when researchers have access to new work on trade deficits, computer security, earthquake prediction, avian flu, and global warming. Finally, of course, most citizens never drive on a given mile of publicly-funded highway, but that's not a reason to withhold public funding from the highway.