OA journals Debated in the Financial Times
Matthew Cockerill and John Enderby, “ Internet Upstarts v Traditional Publishers,” Financial Times, November 25, 2004. (Two arguments, pro and con on OA).
Pro: Quoting from Matthew Cockerill (technical director and co-founder of BioMed Central): “In the UK alone, billions of pounds of tax-payers’ money are spent annually on research, so the government might be expected to take a prudent interest in how the resulting journal articles are published, archived and made accessible. Surprisingly, though, copyright to publicly funded research articles is routinely signed over to publishers, who then sell limited, subscription-based access back to the scientific community. The cost of publishing a scientific research article is a tiny fraction of what it costs to do the research in the first place; yet publishers end up controlling access to the findings….A recent UK parliamentary committee report urged the government to help expand access to the results of research. But the government response was cautious and skeptical, and was concerned primarily with defending the interests of the traditional publishing industry. This has been perceived by some as a blow to the "open access" movement, but in fact open access, in the UK at least, has never been stronger….Similarly, open access publishing will not sound the death knell for scientific societies that publish traditional journals. In fact, far-sighted societies, including the National Academy of Sciences in the US, recognise that open access better serves their members’ needs and are moving their funding model away from dependence on surpluses from journal publishing. If a scientific society is genuinely serving its members’ needs, there is no reason why such a transition should be problematic.”
Con: Quoting from John Enderby (vice-president of the Royal Society): “There is no reason why current publishing practices, which cover costs through library subscriptions, cannot be adapted and developed to fulfill these open access aims. Many journals, including those of the Royal Society, are already adapting and others will follow suit. The open access movement has put added pressure on journals to examine current practices, and that input is welcome in influencing developments. But this is only part of a more fundamental, long-running approach in which good publishers are responsive to the changing needs of authors, readers and librarians….Learned societies, including the Royal Society, rely on revenues from publishing to fund activities that benefit science, such as funding researchers and undertaking science communication programmes….For wider public access around the world it is possible to maintain free online archives and the Royal Society, along with many others, makes its papers free after 12 months. If the content of papers is of significant public interest it can be made available free of charge on publication.”
Open Access News, Nov. 26, 2004 http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
