JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB Archives

LIS-ELIB Archives


LIS-ELIB@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB Home

LIS-ELIB  January 2004

LIS-ELIB January 2004

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Op Ed piece to use to promote Open Access

From:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Stevan Harnad <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:07:59 +0000

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (139 lines)

I have not transferred copyright for this piece (which just appeared in
the Montreal Gazette).
http://www.canada.com/search/story.aspx?id=8e912f55-eb8e-459e-8e7a-a7bd6d8dc995

So I hereby invite anyone who wishes to republish it in order to help
promote open access to do so. It is written in a popular style, so if
you can place it in any newspapers or magazines, please do go ahead!
(I don't care if it appears under my name or generically.)

(The full-text below diverges slightly from the published Gazette version,
e.g., in the title. -- SH)

Let All Knowledge Be Free That Wants to be Free

Stevan Harnad
http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/

Some well-meaning cowboys have noticed a similarity between the
World-Wide-Web and the Wild-Wild-West, with its limitless space, free
for the taking. They've concluded that the Web Age means we can at last
have free access to all knowledge.

I wish they had been right, but unfortunately knowledge is produced by
people, and not all people want to give away their work for free!

The authors of most books, for example, are quite aware that the Web is a
medium in which texts can be made accessible to anyone who clicks on them,
but they'd rather their readers paid for access. Same is true for singers
and song-writers, and for most writers of computer software. Human nature
being what it is -- and the demands of daily survival being what they
are -- most people would prefer to be paid for their work, regardless
of whether their product is physical goods and services or abstract
knowledge. If I cannot be paid for it, why bother to do the work at all?

But there is one prominent exception. University reseachers are paid to *do*
research, but they publish it (in research journals) for free. Unlike all
other authors, they don't ask for any fee or royalty for these writings.

Why?

Because in publishing them they are not looking for sales revenue but
for "research impact." How many users read, apply, use, build-upon and cite
my research? Those are the numbers on which the researcher's career and
research-funding depend.

So what's the problem then? This knowledge was give-away knowledge
already in the paper era.  Now that we have the Web, we can give
it all away big-time!

Not so fast!

I said the researchers give it away, but that doesn't mean its users don't
have to pay! For the only way to get access -- either on paper or online
-- to the contents of the 24,000 research journals in which 2.5 million
research articles appear yearly every year is for the would-be user's
university to pay for access. And the fact is that the access-tolls
are so high that universities can afford access only to a small and
shrinking fraction of them. That means that the world's research output
is inaccessible to most of its would-be users, despite the fact that it
is and always has been an author give-away!

This represents a great loss to research, researchers, their institutions,
their research funders, and the tax-payers who are paying for it all. It
has been estimated that articles that are accessible toll-free on the
Web have 336% more research impact than those that are only available
via toll-access. (336% may not seem like a large increase, but
considering that most research is not cited at all, this figure is
actually astronomical.)

Why are there still access-blocking tolls, then? So that journals can
continuing making ends meet. Why do we still need journals at all, if
access can be provided for free on the Web? Because journals provide "peer
review," which ensures that the research is reliable and correct.

The peers who review and certify the articles are qualified experts in
the article's field, but they too, like the authors, seek no payment for
their work! So the only cost involved is *implementing* the peer review:
A qualified editor has to pick the reviewers, the journal has to track
the reviewing process, and then the editor has to make sure the author
does any recommended revisions. We know what implementing all of that
costs: about $500 per paper.

But what is the planet -- or rather, those few universities on the
planet that can afford access to any given journal -- actually paying in
access tolls for the very limited access it gets in return? About $1500
per article on average.

Why so much more than $500? Because those costs include the production
and distribution of the paper version, as well as some values added to
the online version (mark-up, PDF paper images, etc.).

Because of this arithmetic, a number of new journals have been created
in recent years that do not try to recover their costs by charging
access-blocking tolls to the reader-institution, but through a per-article
publication charge to the author-institution.

About 1000 such "open-access" journals exist today. That's enough to
provide open access to less than 5% of the planet's yearly research
output. What about the other 95%?

The solution is simple, and it is very much in the spirit of the
Wild-Web! All articles for which there is not yet a suitable open-access
journal should be published, as before, in a suitable toll-access journal,
but, in addition, they should be "self-archived" by their authors on
their own university websites.

That way, all those would-be users whose universities cannot afford to
access the deluxe version from the publisher can access the author's
give-away vanilla version (and thus no research impact is lost)

Journals are not yet ready to risk making the transition to
open-access publishing, but 55% of them already officially support
author self-archiving. And many of the rest will agree if asked,
because no publisher wants to be seen as blocking the research impact
of the knowledge that their authors are freely giving them and their
peer-reviewers are freely reviewing for them.

It is now up to research institutions and funders to extend their "Publish
or Perish" policies to "Provide Open Access to Your Publications" so as
to maximize the benefits of this give-away knowledge to the tax-paying
society that funded it.

For details about the worldwide open access movement, see:

American Scientist Forum:
    http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/september98-forum.html
Budapest Open Access Initiative
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess/
Berlin Declaration:
    http://www.zim.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html
Self-Archiving FAQ:
    http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/
Bethesda Statement
    http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm
Public Access to Science Act (Sabo Bill, H.R. 2613)
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2977.html
Public Library of Science
    http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org/

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

May 2024
April 2024
January 2024
December 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
February 2022
December 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
May 2021
September 2020
October 2019
March 2019
February 2019
August 2018
February 2018
December 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
June 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
November 2016
August 2016
July 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
September 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998
August 1998
July 1998
June 1998
May 1998
April 1998
March 1998
February 1998
January 1998
December 1997
November 1997
October 1997
September 1997
August 1997
July 1997
June 1997
May 1997
April 1997
March 1997
February 1997
January 1997
December 1996
November 1996
October 1996
September 1996
August 1996
July 1996
June 1996
May 1996
April 1996
March 1996


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager