I disagree with the notion that Open Access is Free Access... it's not. It's
access that is paid for in a lump sum rather than per view or subscription.
I get a couple of emails a day soliciting submissions by Open Access
journals, while I get none from the traditional journals (even in areas
where I have never published before). Also I have seen Open Access
publishers appear out of nowhere and they have 50 - 100 journal titles to
cover all aspects of medical literature. Most of these journals are not
indexed in any of the reputable medical indexes nor do they have an impact
factor, but they will gladly publish your work if you pay. How does this
model improve anything in the medical literature? How is this providing a
good service to our patients?

Also on the point of patient access, most libraries (especially in Western
countries) have agreements to share resources with the local University
libraries. For example, at the medical library I was able to loan a book
from the public library and vice versa. Also patients can use the same
methods (e.g. contacting authors for reprints) that we as researchers use if
we want full access to articles not commonly available to us. But how often
does this happen? When I used to work on comparative effectiveness reviews
for AHRQ, there was a translational product prepared just for patients and
caregivers. This was an additional service even though the full-text is
freely available from AHRQ, but the language was much different. I know
patients who do a lot of reading on their illnesses and I have never heard
of one of them saying that they read this information from XYZ journal. It's
usually from third-party services like Medscape and the like.

What I haven't see is the financial truth behind Open Access. When Open
Access becomes Free Access, I will support it 100%. While it remains, let me
make this person rich instead of that person, I will keep my money where it
belongs.

Ahmed


-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Simon,
P.Mean Consulting
Sent: Sunday, March 25, 2012 11:22 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Perils of open access

On 3/23/2012 7:17 PM, Suhail Doi wrote:
> Thanks everyone - I think we are all agreed in one way or another that 
> OA is really reverse restricted access and the question now is what 
> should our responsibility to academic publishing be from here on as 
> evidence based researchers and practitioners.

Let me add my voice to those who respectfully disagree with this
perspective. For researchers, it may be debatable whether it is better to
pay to get your work published or to pay to see the work of other
researchers. Who knows which is the frying pan and which is the fire. 
But for patients who wish to research their own conditions, there cannot be
any debate. They are not in a position to pay the exorbitant fees that many
medical journals charge. Open Access is the only publishing model that makes
sense for them.

Also, from the perspective of those who volunteer their services for free,
there cannot be any debate. Would you donate your time as a peer-reviewer,
for example, to help the big rich publishers get even bigger and richer? If
they're making money off the publication of an article, where's my cut?
Adding insult to injury, I'm stuck on the wrong side of the firewall for
those articles that I helped them get published. Is this fair?

I've written some book reviews for a restricted access journal. This is
clearly a service for them. I'd like to share my book reviews with readers
of my email newsletter, The Monthly Mean, but I can't because the journal is
asking for $35 from any of my subscribers who wants to see what I've done.

I'm much more inclined to offer peer review or other services for free if I
know that in return for my free efforts, the article itself is going to be
free for anyone who wants it.

Finally, one point not cited yet that is a big advantage of Open Access
journals is that they are easier to cite by others, especially in newer
settings like Facebook and Twitter. If you're trying to improve the
visibility of your research and you have a choice between two journals that
have the same average number of readers, then the Open Access journal is
clearly the superior choice.

While it is not always advisable to limit your publishing choices to Open
Access journals when you are deciding where to publish an article, Open
Access is a better model for publication, at least from the perspective of
the patients that this research is intended to help and from the perspective
of the many volunteers who offer their services for free to insure high
quality in the research publication world. We authors should try our best to
encourage the continued growth and success of Open Access, not because it is
in our best interests (although it might indeed be in our best interests),
but rather because it is in the best interests of others.

Steve Simon, [log in to unmask], Standard Disclaimer.
Sign up for the Monthly Mean, the newsletter that dares to call itself
average at www.pmean.com/news