Rudy M. Baum, The Open-Access Myth, Chemical and Engineering News 82(8), 3 (February 23, 2004). (Access restricted to subscribers.) Baum writes: "Open access is predicated on an obvious truth and a dangerous myth." By the former he means the reality that public monies underwrite the majority of scientific literature, while the latter, the myth that the CEN editor seeks to jettison is that publishers "add little value to the research they publish." Rather than detailing the costs of producing a high-quality publication and demonstrating such added value, Baum attacks open access models as based on flawed reasoning, unproven in the marketplace, unfair to authors in developing countries (in terms of the author payment model) and suggests furthermore that OA is unwanted by the majority of scientists as exemplified in the recent PNAS survey (see Peter's posting from 2/4) in which 50% surveyed were willing to consider author fees. Finally, he reduces a complex issue (OA) with many facets and players into a "something for nothing" wish-fulfillment.
Posted by
Garrett at 2/24/2004 12:11:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
