News / Comments / There are cons to open acces? Really? - bjoern.brembs.blog

Use the link to access the full text of the post .  “Hot on the heels of confusing science with religion, the journal that calls itself "the no. 1 weekly science journal" (Nature) goes on to embarrass itself with ‘an independent assessment of the key arguments’ surrounding open access. Given that Nature Publishing Group is a stakeholder itself, the independence of anything published there should not be taken for granted. Let's have a look at some of these 'independent arguments':  ‘But even where research is publicly-funded, taxes are generally not paid so that taxpayers can access research results, but rather so that society can benefit from the results of that research; in the form of new medical treatments, for example. Publishers claim that 90% of potential readers can access 90% of all available content through national or research libraries, and while this may not be as easy as accessing an article online directly it is certainly possible.’  In other words, society doesn't benefit from doctors and patients having access to medical research? That retired professors have access to research? The list goes on, e.g. at whoneedsaccess.org. Clearly, not even close to 90% of those who need access have access to even anything remotely close to 90%. How about some survey data to counter baseless publishers' assertions who has access to how much? See slide 35 of my presentation. I'd challenge the publishers to back their claim up with some data, preferentially not their own surveys, if they have done any.  ‘Another criticism of open access is that payment for publication could create conflicts of interest and have a negative impact on the perceived neutrality of peer review, as there would be a financial incentive for journals to publish more articles.’  That argument only holds if one follows the baseless assumption that we should keep a journal system based on corporate publishers. Because corporate publishers in scholarly communication have about as much justification for their existence as the Pony Express or the telegraph, all arguments resting on that assumption fall flat. As previously pointed out on this blog and elsewhere, libraries (i.e. the ones paying the publishers) are in a much better position to take over the responsibilities publishers carry today.  ‘Open Access is also often seen as a solution to the 'serials crisis,' a situation where many libraries have been forced to cut journal subscriptions because of price increases. Subscription charges - and the volume of content published - have undisputedly risen more sharply than library budgets. But it is worth questioning to what extent the serials crisis is also due to the level of library budgets – typically around 2% of a university's budget. Some would argue that this level is insufficient in the information age in which we live.’  Really? In times when access to information has become so cheap that newspaper empires are crumbling, universities, many of them publicly funded, should pay more for the commodity everyone else is paying less for? That argument takes some more reasoning than just stating it. ‘They cannot be blamed for running their businesses in such a way as to maximise profits.  I agree in principle with this argument, although some people might find the way in which these profits are generated obscene...”