I agree, academics are only a small part of the picture where this is concerned. As for Ahmed's response that patients can access the journals at their local uni library, not many uni libraries in western queensland.
R
-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Simon, P.Mean Consulting
Sent: Monday, 26 March 2012 2:22 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
|