jeu 26 déc 2013
Open Access: don’t mistake the cherry for the cake
Posté par Bernard Rentier dans Open Access in English , Recherche5 Commentaires
There is a pervasive misconception concerning the much used slogan of Open Access: « Publicly funded research must be made public freely ». The claim is based on the logic that public funders should not pay twice: first for research, then for its publication. In fact, the cost of publication should be included in the cost of research, but in real cost-based pricing while access to reading should be free.
But the misconception is elsewhere. It lies in the identity of the reader. It is true that, when a research ‘paper’ is available on the Internet, everybody who has computer access to it can read it. However, in almost all cases, access is required, specifically searched for and effectively used by scholars and professionals, not by any layperson.
Hence, the debate is derailing when it comes to support Open Access on the controversial basis that the general public should have access to research results freely. The real cause to defend is that scholars whose research can benefit from the reading have free access as soon as a ‘paper’ is peer reviewed and accepted for publication. The rest is cherry on the cake.
There are lots of good reasons for Open Access and OA publishing, any of which are good enough reasons to do them:
1) Access to material for low income country and independent researchers
2) Access to all material, even for those at well funded institutions
3) Better / new science through the use of text-mining
4) Increased economic growth with lack of restrictions to access (and re-use)
5) Quicker dissemination of information
6) Reduced costs of publication / access
Access for a « layperson » (and there may be some issues with defining what that constitutes), is not one of the main benefits. However, general access (including those who use it for economic growth) may be one of the more powerful arguments for mandating OA – particularly at a funder level.
That said, « layperson » access is not a bad thing. If more people had access to the research, there might be fewer ill-informed debates.
Commentaire de Graham, le 26 déc 2013 à 12:36@Graham: Fully agreed
Commentaire de Bernard Rentier, le 26 déc 2013 à 13:26About the « laypersons », there are also journalists, who can have better access to scientific information
Commentaire de ABonvoisin, le 27 déc 2013 à 17:39Not necessarily. I have just made a research with ORBI for publications of Michel Delville about American Literature.
Commentaire de Charles Voisin, le 4 avr 2014 à 23:54Let’s make it clear: I wish every one had access to scientific literature. My point was not against that. I was just being cautious about an argument that can be used wrongly by opponents and that could ignite another debate.
Commentaire de Bernard Rentier, le 5 avr 2014 à 6:31