The problem here is the lack of understanding of various Open Access
models. Open Access is not just 'pay to publish and read for free'
model. Just because Open Access Publishers PLoS and BioMed Central has
adopted this 'pay to publish and read for free' model successfully
does not mean it is the Open Access.
'Publish for free, read for free' is actually a reality. My advise
would be to Publish any where one feels comfortable. Open or Closed -
but do retain and exercise rights to self-archive in Open Access
Repositories.
However, I don't understand why OA could be more harmful for
developing countries. PLoS and BioMed Central waive author side fees
to authors from developing countries, at least for the first time.
But success of BioMed Central / PLoS model underlines one thing.
Authors are paying them because they perceive value in Open Access
publishing. Most of the time such author side charges are refunded by
employers / funding agencies. I know at least one research funding
agency of India which reimburses the author side charges (Called page
charges) if the journal publishing the article has an impact fact
greater than a specific limit.
Even if we take Open Access as 'pay to publish and read for free'
model as Open Access (which it is not) still the developing countries
stand to gain. It is because there are fewer "publishing" authors from
developing countries as compared to total number of "readers" in the
developing countries. 'Publish for free and pay to read' model is
proving another form of 'brain-drain' for developing countries. Good
research (carried out of public funds) is being published outside
(because it is considered more reputed). The country has to import the
same in foreign currency.
Best would be to understand what open access is? It is peer-reviewed
literature that is made accessible for free by the consent of the
authors / right holders. It could be through Gold Model (OA
Publishing) or through Green Model (OA Self-Archiving in
repositories). Both are good for all the countries especially for
developing countries.
--Sukhdev Singh (09868960074), NIC.
On Fri, May 23, 2008 at 1:01 PM, madhuresh.singhal
Dear All,
I am reproducing below the letter of Mr Raghavendra from IISc published in Nature recent issue. I am sure that our Open Source champions will have some comments on this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----
Open-access more harm than good in developing world
Raghavendra Gadagkar1
Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560012, India
Sir
The traditional 'publish for free and pay to read' business model adopted by publishers of academic journals can lead to disparity in access to scholarly literature, exacerbated by rising journal costs and shrinking library budgets. However, although the 'pay to publish and read for free' business model of open-access publishing has helped to create a level playing field for readers, it does more harm than good in the developing world.
Authors by no means have a level playing field, even in the traditional publishing model. The dynamics of peer review make it hard to ensure that publication of an article is a function of only its quality, uninfluenced by factors such as topicality or the author's name and affiliation. The open-access model makes the playing field for authors even more uneven.
Page charges may be waived for authors who cannot afford to pay, but a model that depends on payment by authors can afford only a few such waivers. And why should anyone want to survive on charity? The argument that it is the granting agency and not the author that pays does not wash either. If anything, the playing field for grants is even more uneven. Besides, this will undermine, rather than encourage, the whole area of grant-free research.
Page charges make extra difficulties for authors, while the old problems associated with peer review persist. They could be disastrous for the underdeveloped world, encouraging people to remain as consumers (readers), rather than to become producers (authors) of knowledge.
A 'publish for free, read for free' model may one day prove to be viable. Meanwhile, if I have to choose between the two evils, I prefer the 'publish for free and pay to read' model over the 'pay to publish and read for free' one. Because if I must choose between publishing or reading, I would choose to publish. Who would not?
Source: Nature 2008, 453(7194): 450 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7194/full/453450c.html
Regards Madhuresh Singhal Deputy Manager - Knowledge Services Advinus Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. 21 & 22, Phase 2, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore - 560058 Phone: +91 80 28394959; Mobile 098861 82822 E-mail: madhureshsinghal@yahoo.com http://nettalk2.tripod.com/
*************************************************************************************************
This email and its attachments are confidential and proprietary to Advinus Therapeutics Pvt. Ltd. and are meant for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, do not take any actions based on the contents of this message, except to permanently delete the message and its attachments and inform the sender immediately.
*************************************************************************************************
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.
_______________________________________________ LIS-Forum mailing list LIS-Forum@ncsi.iisc.ernet.in http://ncsi.iisc.ernet.in/mailman/listinfo/lis-forum
-- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.