Date: Fri, 12 Mar 2004 10:06:37 +0530
From: Krishnan
Editorial from C&E News makes interesting reading!
The Open-Access Myth
HYPERLINK "http://pubs.acs.org/cen/staff/biorb.html"RUDY M. BAUM
Editor-in-chief
Much has changed in scientific, technical, and medical (STM) publishing =
in the past decade. New electronic methods of delivery and of searching
and accessing the STM literature have combined with ferocious pressure on
library budgets to create a whole new STM publishing environment. It is =
an environment that challenges everyone involved in this important
activity = to think hard about where it's going and what shape we want it
to take.
One response to developments in STM primary and secondary publishing is =
the "open access" movement. Starting primarily among the West Coast
biology = and biomedical research communities in the late 1990s,
open-access advocates have pressed a variety of demands on STM publishers.
Those demands have = one common theme: that access to the STM literature
at some point becomes = free to the public. "At some point" variously has
been defined as six months after publication, one year after publication,
or immediately.=20
Open access is predicated on an obvious truth and a dangerous myth. The
obvious truth is that most of the research published in the STM =
literature is supported by public funding. Therefore, open-access
advocates claim, = the research should be freely available to the public
that funds it.
At first blush, the argument seems reasonable. The dangerous, usually
unspoken, myth that makes the argument seem reasonable is this: STM
publishers add little value to the research they publish and therefore
should not charge institutions for subscriptions to the electronic =
versions of their journals, or, at the very least, they should provide
open = access to the public a short time after publication.
One of the most visible manifestations of the open-access movement is =
the HYPERLINK "http://www.plos.org"Public Library of Science (PLoS), which
describes itself as "a nonprofit organization of scientists and =
physicians committed to making the world's scientific and medical
literature a = public resource." That sounds noble, but it implies that
the STM literature = isn't already a public resource, which is debatable.
PLoS has already launched one open-access journal, PLoS Biology, and =
plans to launch another, PLoS Medicine, later this year. PLoS acknowledges
on = its website that it does, in fact, cost something to publish a
journal, but argues that the current practice of charging for
subscriptions and site licenses is "expensive and cumbersome and can
involve complex = negotiations ... and, of course, many institutions
simply cannot afford these = licenses. Open access solves all of these
problems."
PLoS's business model is to charge a fee of $1,500 per paper to authors =
to cover the costs of publishing. Whether $1,500 per paper is a reasonable
assessment of the cost of publishing a peer-reviewed research paper is =
open to question. And it's not clear to me what advantage is conferred by
shifting the cost of publishing from libraries to researchers. Most of =
us thought the elimination of page charges was a good thing. Not =
surprisingly, the PLoS model has raised other issues, such as what to do
about = authors, like those in developing countries, who can't afford the
charge.
Interestingly, the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences just
released the results of a survey of 610 corresponding authors on open =
access [101, 5 (2004)]. Only half of the respondents were willing to pay a
fee = to provide open access, and of those, 80% said $500 was the most
they would pay.
STM publishing faces many challenges. Prices charged by some commercial
publishers are way too high. However, the marketplace is responding to =
those high prices in a predictable way as libraries make hard choices and
= cancel subscriptions. The open-access movement's demand that an entirely
new = and unproven model for STM publishing be adopted is not in the best
= interests of science.
It's human nature to want something for nothing. Unfortunately, =
excellence rarely comes without a price. Perhaps that's the most dangerous
myth = being fostered by the open-access movement: that access to
high-quality STM literature can be had on the cheap.
Dr. S. Krishnan
Head, Information Division
National Chemical Lab, PUNE 411008, INDIA
e-mail: HYPERLINK "mailto:krish@ems.ncl.res.in"krish@ems.ncl.res.in
HYPERLINK "http://www.ncl-india.org"http://www.ncl-india.org
Tel: 020-25893457; Fax: 020-25893973
