Jim Thornton, 'Free' peer-review publishing, BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 111, 515-516 (2004). (Access restricted to subscribers.) Thornton does not see open access publishing as viable. Among his criticisms are: "It is not automatic that funding journals from advertisers rather than subscriptions will raise standards. We already have plenty of advertising-funded journals ... They rarely publish the best research." The editor also has low regard for author payment models, comparing this mode of publishing to a "vanity press." He has many questions for models based on government funding, particularly the worry that it would prejudice publishing towards government-supported research. Then Thornton makes a statement that causes one to wonder how closely he has been following scholarly publishing issues: "Publishers' profits are often claimed to be excessive, but it is difficult to see why. The business is fiercely competitive and publishers can always be undercut by established competitors or new entrants. Barriers to entry are low, as evidenced by the hundreds of small independent and university based concerns." Thornton goes on to remind readers that publishing isn't free, but it seems he does his readers a disservice by lumping together free access and open access. As Peter Suber has said many times on this forum, OA doesn't claim to be free but open.
Posted by
Garrett at 6/28/2004 02:07:00 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.
