Harvard Votes on Open Access Today
February 12, 2008 – 6:15 am by Mur LaffertyMan I love Twitter - I’ve been out of the loop for a while due to my mac being in the shop and struggling with my dinosaur PC is no fun, sorry for my absence. But today Paul Jones from UNC mentioned this on Twitter and I got all giddy.
Turns out that the NY Times is reporting the Harvard Arts and Sciences faculty will be voting today on whether to make their journals open access on the web. The debate is, of course, that publishing on the web diminishes strict peer review and reduces income, but on the other hand, the journals are quite expensive with a small subscriber base.
“In place of a closed, privileged and costly system, it will help open up the world of learning to everyone who wants to learn,” said Robert Darnton, director of the university library. “It will be a first step toward freeing scholarship from the stranglehold of commercial publishers by making it freely available on our own university repository.”
I think it all depends on whether the faculty views their work as strides forward in knowledge or a commodity to line their pockets. And don’t get me wrong; I’ve worked in the RPG industry, I know all about people trying to get you to do work for free or a pittance “for the love.” But there’s nothing in this article that says journals will cease publication, and the author of the work is free to opt-out of making their work available.
Come on academia, make the right choice! *crosses fingers*
2 Responses to “Harvard Votes on Open Access Today”
This seems like a no-brainer. The peer-review process is the most important point here, at least for me. To have that corner cut due to lack of funding or staffing from possible “revenue loss” of taking journals online is clearly the antithesis of the academic process. Those of us familiar with open media, however, are keenly aware that switching to that distribution method can be highly successful - this is another case where the “old system,” much like traditional book publishing, needs to make some significant changes to its current financial structure and internal processes in order to make open online peer-reviewed academia work. And as with said other “old systems,” convincing those that need to be to accept that degree of change as necessary is a huge barrier.
The other point of note is that there is a serious need for authentic scientific publications to move online to combat the ever-present woo-woo. The internet is the first logical place a layperson would go to find out information on a scientific or medical topic, and currently is host to a glut of freely accessible “studies” that are, at best poorly conceived and misleading articles, and at worst outright fabrications… but still purport to be highly meaningful and informative. This leads to frustration on the part of academics and clinicians when interfacing with laypersons, who often find themselves in a position where they need to primarily debunk junk science, as opposed to initiate positive outreach and education. Moving to open access is not only in the best interest of science in this case, but also in the true spirit of academia as well.
By Cmaaarrr!!! on Feb 12, 2008
I’m curious as to how going open would diminish peer review. Aren’t we simply talking about what happens after the final editorial decisions are made? By that time the peer-review process is over and done, no?
By Michael on Feb 16, 2008