Abstract: The open access to scientific information has become a contentious issue. In the United States there are calls to make all published literature available for free within 6 months of publication, the notion being that this will promote better science and policy decisions based on science. Here, I argue that this is the incorrect approach to the issue of open access to scientific information. A fundamental problem raised by the call for open access to government-supported research results is the viability of our not-for-profit professional scientific societies. These societies provide the base level framework for the exchange of scientific ideas, and hence the very core of how we do science and how scientific knowledge is advanced. Why should a scientist subscribe to a journal if they can read the article for free in six months? A large portion of a society's operational costs come from these subscriptions and the sale of specialized books, all of which contain the results of federally-funded research. Without revenue from journal subscriptions and book sales, not only will these publications disappear, but many of societies may as well. Without a broad venue to publish and in which to interact, our science suffers - many subdisciplines may fade or even die - those that don't "sell well." Very popular publications such as "Nature", "Science", "Tectonics", and "Geology" will continue to thrive, but what about the more specialized journals such as "Journal of Paleontology"? They are costly to publish yet fill a very critical niche for our science. Many will still pay for reading the Nature/Science/Tectonics/Geology article, but where do we publish the mainstream science paper? We have to guard against becoming a "Hollywood Science" - where only the glitzy gets published because those are the articles that sell. We must have peer-reviewed, independent publications and viable professional societies, or our science will severely suffer. We can better approach the need for open access to scientific information by concentrating on the data versus the written word. The written word can and should be copyrighted. This protects the viability of the journals of many societies - large and small - and therefore the viability of the societies and the science they support. Furthermore, the written word is largely interpretation - some of which flows directly from the funded research, but much of which reflects the accumulated knowledge of the scientists; knowledge that has been derived from sources that cannot be tracked. Interpretations and conclusions differ among scientists - that is what drives the progress of science, and that is the written word. The notion that all journal articles must be free to all effectively says that ideas and interpretations cannot be protected by copyright. It should also be noted that all articles are available in libraries as they are published, so it is hard to argue that they are not "freely available." What hinders science and public policy decision making, is the lack of complete access to all relevant data and metadata. To require that all relevant data and metadata be publically available six months after publication is a viable solution. The government dollars clearly pay for the data, but the source of support for scientific interpretation and discussion is impossible to determine. Once the data are public, they are free for all to reinterpret and to use as the basis for additional studies that reflect the unsolved issues of the previous study. Many of the government agencies that supply research funds already have data policies in place. What may be required is the funding base to allow them to implement these policies in consultation with the academic community that they serve.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 12/04/2006 12:00:00 AM.
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.
