Thoughts on Open Access
The following are some of my thoughts about the ongoing debate about Open Access journals. These comments should probably be on a blog, however I decided to put them on a "permanent" page due to the importance of these issues.
Open Access to Journals
First of all, what is open access?
A detailed explanation of the main goals of open access can be found in the Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities.
Briefly, Open Access refers to the concept that the results of scientific research should be made freely (and readily) available to society. This principle goes beyond financial considerations. Questions about who pays for the research and dissemination, and who can reap the benefits are, in fact, totally irrelevant to the issue, though they are used by many opponents to open access principles as a means to confuse the issue at hand. The goal of science is to benefit mankind and, as such, the results of scientific inquiry should be disseminated freely.
Is Open Access feasible?
The short answer is YES--see the long list of journals that operate under this model at http://www.doaj.org.
Here are some additional facts:
The Internet has made it possible to cheaply and efficiently distribute information, obviating the need for a complex paper-based dissemination system
Most of the research is supported through public funds (i.e. the journals do not pay for the research)
The peer-review process is almost entirely voluntary. I rarely, if ever, receive anything in return from the journals for reviewing papers. Even if I receive an "honorarium", it is usually something minimal, such as "free access" to a journal's online articles for a short bit of time. Furthermore, universities recognize the importance of peer-review in scientific research and allow researchers the time necessary for reviewing articles. Thus, in some sense, the peer-review process is supported through public funds as well.
The contribution of the journal is usually minimal. With few exceptions, the authors of the articles are responsible for writing and formatting the text while the reviewers perform the bulk of the editing process.
Is anybody against Open Access?
While the free access to knowledge should be a universally accepted principle, efforts to promote open access meet increasing resistance from the publishing companies. While Congress has moved to require public access to federally funded research (see the Appropriations Committee Report), the Association of American Publishers has created a "coalition" aimed at "educating citizens and policy makers" and to "counter the rhetorical excesses indulged in by some advocates of open access". (Note: I intentionally do not link to this association but you can easily find them through a search engine)
Surprisingly, among the members of the AAP, in addition to the for-profit journals that stand to lose most if open access principles become widely accepted, are scientific organizations such as the Association for Computing Machinery and the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers. This may be just through "guilt by association" as the anti-open-access effort at the AAP was initiated by an executive council that only represents a few of the members. In fact, several members of the AAP have objected to the implicit assumption that all of the AAP is behind this effort (see for example comment by John Inglis about Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press).
Where do the ACM and IEEE stand? (Why single them out? I am a computer scientist, and these organizations control many of the CS journals and conferences).
What can one do to support Open Access
Publish in Open Access journals
Only accept reviewer assignments from Open Access journals
Educate your institution, colleagues, and the public about Open Access