Completely open science has many potential consequences - The Washington Post

The American Psychological Association (APA) agrees that the move toward more open science is laudable in light of the fast-moving coronavirus. The ability of scientists to share information rapidly and before papers are accepted in prestigious, peer-reviewed journals is crucial to quickly developing effective treatments and, we hope, a vaccine for the novel coronavirus. However, completely open science runs the risk of unintended consequences. Traditional scholarly publishing helps ensure that high-quality science is being disseminated. The process of reviewing and vetting scientific papers is painstaking, time-consuming and costly, but the result is that better research reaches the public, and poorly conducted or constructed studies do not. Nonprofit scientific publishers, including the APA, are able to put out a broad cross-section of journals that allow both funded and nonfunded researchers to publish their articles without cost, which contributes to diversity in scholarship. We support open science and open data, but within a publishing model that is sustainable.