Open Access For Research Gaining Steam 64
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC reports
that open access to research is gaining steam as more than 20,000
people, including Nobel Prize winners, have signed a petition calling
for greater access to publicly-funded research. While publishers are
fighting open access, a growing number of funding agencies and
universities are making it a mandatory requirement."
Meat and potatoes. (Score:1, Insightful)
OK so let's cut to the chase. Ignoring money for a moment. Let's compare the open-access sites and the closed journals. How do they compare strictly on results? More accurate? Less accurate? More depth? Less depth?
---
"Slashdot requires you to wait between each successful posting of a comment to allow everyone a fair chance at posting a comment."
TRM (Taco Rights Managment) strikes again
On the one hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other hand, why the hell should it cost anything for someone to read the research that their taxpayer dollars are funding? And why should there be gatekeepers of knowledge, or perceived knowledge? My grandfather had a paper that was rejected from the New England Journal of Medicine because he'd done the research before one of the editors, who came out with his own substantially similar paper later. Information should not be subjected to politics--especially information that saves lives. Restricting information increases corruption.
FireHose (Score:5, Insightful)
Bioinformatics has been open from the beginning (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meat and potatoes. (Score:3, Insightful)
This is crap. Thise "closed" journals are not closed, they are abailable, for a fee. And yes, those journals generally provide higher quality papers, better written, better presented, and generally more relevant to the topic it covers. People spend time and resources in developing those results and then another amount of time and resrouces to write them, then another pack of people spend an amount of time and resources to review those wtitings and then some money to publish them. Why on Earth do people think the final product of this sometimes quite consuming and lengthy process should be made freely available to the rest of them ? This is stupid.
Re:On the one hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
What gets me the most is that currently publishers make you sign the copyright waver to transfer rights to them. All such forms that I have seen start with "The copyright law requires that you transfer the copyright..." which is a complete bullshit. I could have held the copyright and just given them permission to publish it once, there's nothing in any law that requires copyright transfer for publishing.
But if I don't sign that form then I don't get published, and then I don't get funded for research because I have no publications. Catch-22.
Re:On the one hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:On the one hand... (Score:5, Insightful)
Do NOT blame the scientists. (Score:5, Insightful)
On another note, many researchers have partial funding from agencies which are not taxpayer funded, like Howard Hughes, American Cancer Society, Alzheimer's Foundation, etc. This is also very common for postdoctoral fellow or graduate student fellowships. So just because a particular area of research got a dime of taxpayer money, does that automatically mean it should all be open access? It's not often easy to figure out the final contribution from multiple funding sources to a specific project.
Most journals actually provide free access to articles after a certain time frame (like six months, or a year). Additionally, most articles that have broad interest are typically well publicized by news outlets (the applicable conclusions from the research, at least). Frankly, I don't think most of Joe. Q. Public gives a damn about the details of 99% of the research articles published, or could even understand it. As a biologist, I'm not sure I could understand most physics papers, for example. This whole bruhaha seems more about some principle that important to some vocal minority than a genuine public concern. In the end, important taxpayer funded research finds the light of day at the appropriate juncture.
Personally, as someone who is proud of his work and wants it to be widely known, open access is great. Practically, I don't think it's THAT big a deal. And I think most journals are doing enough to publicize the broad picture.
It's not just about the money... (Score:3, Insightful)
Even today in the advent of electronic publishing, it is still a gigantic cost to print each issue; yes, we pay (sometimes hundreds of dollars) per page for things like color micrographs and the like, but considering that many times these journals have readerships that are less than ten thousand (sometimes considerably less) in the entire WORLD, to make these things self-sustaining is difficult at best.
Let us not forget also that the journal editors orchestrate peer review. Certainly you might say that would be simple to resolve, but there are often good reasons why editors will avoid candidates for peer review that might look good to someone who hasn't been doing the job for years. Doctor X might work with Doctor Y, for example. Editors often have an eye to catch situations that might represent conflict of interest and avoid them. This also works in reverse as well. Without some sort of oversight, the less scrupulous researcher could simply send all his or her publications to be peer-reviewed by a friend, who would give them great ratings and send them on to be published online. The problem is that most researchers live in a bit of a vacuum. They work in a rather narrow margin within a field and sometimes get to know others just by the work they've published if it falls along close lines. That would make it very, very hard to objectively self-review (among themselves, that is) publications.
Does it still happen in the current system? I'm sure it does. I also know that bad papers still get published, and good papers are rejected because one of the peer reviewers is working along similar lines and wants to be first to get it out (I've seen this happen).
The system is imperfect, but it provides a structure under which we can have some sort of independent review. Simply tossing everything out in the open sounds good, but would be quite a different issue in practice.
Besides, not to put too fine a point on it, but what is the general public going to do with all of this? The Federal government has required for a long time that the titles of all NSF (maybe NIH too) grants are made available to the public. What happened? People objected because studies were being done with cannibis, or other 'bad' drugs for purely medical reasons. Now we are specifically taught how to word grants so that they don't inflame the 'layperson' and get funding rejected because someone didn't like the title. What do you think will happen when we start touting all the 'free and open access' to papers? People who have no idea what is going on will raise holy hell because mice are being used for experiments or god forbid we're using heroin to test it's effect on X or Y.
I'm all for freedom of information, but I don't see what good this will accomplish.
Re:On the one hand... (Score:4, Insightful)
The simple solution is an internet-based taxpayer-sponsored library.
It avoids de-privatizing the journals.
It gives the public the access they want for the price they want.
Just hotlink them through Entrez Pubmed, or whatever other search engines people use, and collect use statistics to pay the journals.
The way this query is worded "Free public access to science" suggests that the peer review process and distribution process are inherently worthless. That could not be farther from true. But giving the public access to scientific work is a great idea.
Re:On the one hand... (Score:1, Insightful)
I grant you that some journal, perhaps even most, do little for their money. But you're sadly mistaken if you think that if that a journal can run for free or "a token". Editorial staff do a lot of work - finding referees, handing out reviews, chasing up reviews when they are late (i.e. always), reconciling disagreements between referees, sending papers back for corrections, chasing up the corrections when they're late (i.e. often), assessing that the referees criticisms have been met, handling reply papers or letters. Some of the bigger journals also have people go over papers and massage them into a "house style". Distribution is cheap - it's all the human labour involved before the paper gets printed that costs.
As for "typesetting is provided by the authors": I'm old enough to remember when a lot of journal were done like that, assembled from the original typewritten manuscripts, a hodge-podge of typefaces and sizes. We so don't want to go back to those days. TeX isn't an answer - outside of CompSci and math, very scientists use it. And as someone who's had to assemble a proceedings from 30 manuscripts supposedly produced from the same TeX template, it's not as simple as just joining them together.
I support Open Access, but it's just a question of snapping your fingers and having all the work done for free. Last year a journal I submit to sent me a questionaire floating the idea they might go Open Access. I replied that it was a good idea, but that I would be unable to publish there anymore as I couldn't afford the £1000 per paper it would cost me. The current model of Open Access just shifts costs from the journal subscriber to the paper author.