Open Access NewsNews from the open access movement Jump to navigation |
|||
"Publishing is not a homogenous activity"
John Cox, Access to Scholarly Literature: Publishing for an Extended Readership, The Serials Librarian, 50, 1/2 (2006). Only this abstract is free online, at least so far:
Access to scholarship and research has become controversial. It is described in apocalyptic terms as 'open'-or good and moral, or 'toll-gated'-with the life-blood of the system ebbing away. The real world is more complex. Publishing is not a homogenous activity, because it reflects the varied needs of scholars. This paper will be based on evidence from surveys and from published inquiries. It will pose, and attempt to answer, some questions about the future of publishing scholarly information, including open access, in the context of what publishers are actually doing. It will describe the challenge that faces publishers and librarians in meeting both scholarly and societal needs. Comment. I don't have access and haven't read the full article. But from the abstract, it looks like Cox is oversimplifying the debate by positioning all OA advocates as oversimplifiers. But oversimplification occurs in every quarter. (Is Cox forgetting that publishers have described OA "in apocalyptic terms" as communist and the death of peer review?) No surprise, Sturgeon's law applies here too. I don't know any OA advocate who has said that publishing is a homogenous activity. My view on this is apparently very close to Cox's: Publishers are not monolithic. Some already provide full OA, some provide hybrid models, and some are considering experiments with it. Among those not providing OA, some are opposed and some are merely unpersuaded. Among the unpersuaded, some provide more free online content than others. OA gains nothing and loses potential allies by blurring these distinctions. |