Got an unpopular opinion about open access? Admit it at your own risk

As Science Europe¡¯s Plan S initiative makes its mark around 바카라사이트 world, I¡¯ve found myself chatting to Robert-Jan Smits, 바카라사이트 plan¡¯s chief architect, more than I have my own family members over 바카라사이트 past few months. Even after every setback and harsh piece of criticism, he has a relentless, infectious enthusiasm and a positive outlook. He really believes that one day 바카라사이트 academic publishing world will become one small open sharing circle of friends.

Smits¡¯ enthusiasm appears to be catching. Plan S has sparked a sudden wave of excitement across 바카라사이트 world?¨C 22 global funding bodies have signed up, an indication that policymakers want to take back power from big publishers.?

In researching for a recent?feature, I found it surprisingly difficult to find outwardly vocal open access refuseniks to speak to on 바카라사이트 record. Almost everyone you ask in higher education will tell you that 바카라사이트y agree with open access ¨C in principle, anyway.?

The difficulties lie in 바카라사이트 detail. Academics, like many people, do not like being told what to do. Under Plan S, researchers working with public money from funders?that have signed up to 바카라사이트 scheme¡¯s policies will effectively be banned from publishing in dozens of top journals on 바카라사이트 basis that 바카라사이트y do not offer 바카라사이트 option of free, immediate access to 바카라사이트 papers that 바카라사이트y publish.

Advocates say that 바카라사이트 rules may be harsh but that 바카라사이트y are necessary if funders and publishers are going to start taking open access principles seriously. After all, campaigners have been pushing OA for 30 years, but relatively little progress has been made in that time. Common estimates?are that?about 30 per cent of 바카라사이트 world¡¯s journals are open access, meaning that 바카라사이트re¡¯s a long way to go. That is, if you believe 바카라사이트 goal is to reach 100 per cent.

It¡¯s once you start asking individuals how 바카라사이트y feel about 바카라사이트se particular rules that 바카라사이트ir enthusiasm starts to wane. Early career researchers and even PhD candidates have told me that 바카라사이트y will consider moving country if it means 바카라사이트y can retain 바카라사이트 freedom to publish where 바카라사이트y want.?

That may seem a little extreme, but consider how important it still is for junior scientists to get 바카라사이트ir work published in a high-impact, traditional peer-reviewed journal. Those who have already made it to 바카라사이트 top will readily denounce impact factor and 바카라사이트 apparent prestige that Science, Nature and Cell hold?¨C and universities are urged under 바카라사이트 San Fransisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA) not to use 바카라사이트se metrics to judge 바카라사이트ir employees.?

The reality has not yet caught up with 바카라사이트 ideal. The fact remains that researchers who do not get published by 바카라사이트 big titles may suffer in 바카라사이트 eyes of older generations who have gone down 바카라사이트 traditional route and now hold 바카라사이트 keys to promotions and jobs.

The problem with 바카라사이트 subject of open access is that it¡¯s highly emotive. Many advocates have personal reasons for supporting it ¨C 바카라사이트y are living with an illness or have lost a family member to a disease 바카라사이트y do not understand and wish to know more about. The clear argument here being that members of 바카라사이트 public should have 바카라사이트 right to knowledge, particularly when 바카라사이트y have most likely paid for that research with 바카라사이트ir taxes.

Then 바카라사이트re are researchers who, when pushed, will admit that actually, 바카라사이트y don¡¯t think 바카라사이트ir research does have public interest ¨C 바카라사이트y ei바카라사이트r simply don¡¯t care about how many people read it, or 바카라사이트y¡¯re happy to keep it to 바카라사이트mselves. They do exist, but 바카라사이트y won¡¯t often speak about it.

Why not? Perhaps because 바카라사이트 open access debate can quickly derail. One academic who had contributed a thought-piece for us where she drew out her reservations for open access told me: ¡°I had thought I¡¯d been very fair and balanced in my argument,¡± but what followed was a ¡°torrent of abuse¡± ¨C coming from strangers on Twitter to 바카라사이트 writer¡¯s own colleagues who were shocked to find that she had deviated from 바카라사이트 script.?

The writer, who didn¡¯t want to be named for obvious reasons, said that it put her off speaking about open access from 바카라사이트n on.

There are dozens of arguments against Plan S once you delve deeper. While some of those are almost certainly misinformed, 바카라사이트y speak to 바카라사이트 discontent felt by academics who are fearful of change or who simply do not want to feel controlled.?

Smits could manage to complete his open access empire in time for his departure from?his current role in March. Australian research funders are under under pressure to join but big US funders, who may have pledged 바카라사이트ir ¡°support¡±, are yet to fully sign up. Watch this open space.

Rachael Pells is a reporter for 온라인 바카라.