 |
 |
There has always been bias in research to those with more money, long before Open Access business models. You have to have a publish worthy paper in the first place and that happens when research is funded. It takes money to provide the resources necessary to apply for and get grants in the first place. I hope there is not the implication that Open Access is especially appealing to libraries because of cost. Libraries are paid for by their institutions. Really, the money is all coming from the same pot but Open Access allows more people to access the information and thus stretches the impact of that money. -- Susan Fowler, MLIS Medical Librarian Evidence at Becker: http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/ebm Mobile Resources Guide: http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/mobileresources Becker Medical Library, Washington University in St. Louis 314-362-8092 [log in to unmask] On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Joy MacDermid <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > I started publishing in bmc with great enthusiasm for the concept of > open access in the early days of its inception. At that time my institution > had a membership so I did not need money to publish. After the first cycle > of contracts the fees increased exponentially and almost all universities > switched to "supporter" where the institution authors get a small > discount. I, like others, find fees of about $2000/paper are a barrier to > many authors and have been disappointed with this. I cannot understand why > the fees need to be this high; but suspect this is related to both > expenses and the business model. The business model of open access means I > can only consider this venue for papers where I have grant funding, which > leaves out many of my projects and any papers beyond the primary paper > from each grant. Having said that for those considering this venue > > 1. Grant agencies do allow adding this to your budget--especially the ones > that mandate you publish the work they fund in open access ( although many > traditional journals now have policies to "open" these types of papers up > electronically if requested by authors) > 2. I have found that some journals have waived fees for graduate trainees > based on financial need; but you need to ask and it is one off- but this > can be important for trainees to get published early > > Joy C MacDermid PT PhD > Email: [log in to unmask]; OR [log in to unmask] > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto: > [log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Suhail Doi > Sent: Friday, March 23, 2012 3:03 AM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Perils of open access > > Amy, > > When we talk of OA, we mean "open" simply in terms of money ... nothing > else. Now how can it be OA if he restriction in terms of money is simply > shunted from users to authors? Its simply reverse restricted access > (RRA) not OA at all. So just as conventional journals restrict access to > non-prosperous readers, OA journals restrict access to non-prosperous > researchers. Both access models claim that they have pathways for "poor" > authors or "poor" readers but we know they do not work. > > The much more dangerous aspect of OA is there is now a mechanism to foster > confirmatory bias since opinions backed by money (that differ from the > mainstream) will have a greater potential to see the light of day as > publishers are no longer making money from readers > > Suhail > > On 3/23/2012 11:45 AM, Amy Price wrote: > > Suhail, > > > > Are you saying that OA is not what it seems because the researchers > > will end up eating the costs so it is not OA at all because it > > reduces accessibility to all but quite prosperous researchers? Are > > you opposed for other reasons as well? > > > > Amy > > > > > > > > > >