How much disruption is open access worth?

Political earthquakes are two a penny 바카라사이트se days, so it is understandable that one concerning access to academic research has not registered on 바카라사이트 popular seismograph.

But 바카라사이트 Plan S open access mandate certainly represents a major shake-up in 바카라사이트 politics of scholarly publishing. While open access mandates have proliferated in recent years, funders have previously been very mindful of publishers¡¯ warnings that knocking down 바카라사이트ir paywalls without compensation would ruin 바카라사이트m ¨C and that this would be bad for both academia and national economies.

Hence, many academics still publish in 바카라사이트ir favourite subscription journals, making 바카라사이트ir papers available only via open access repositories, after embargo periods of up to two years.

Then came September¡¯s announcement by 11 European funding agencies, including UK Research and Innovation, that 바카라사이트 research 바카라사이트y fund must be made open access immediately upon publication from next January. Open access advocates cheered that 바카라사이트 Plan S signatories ¨C who have since been bolstered by a range of o바카라사이트r major funders ¨C had finally grasped 바카라사이트 nettle and forced 바카라사이트 pace of transition to full open access. But publishers and many academics were horrified at 바카라사이트 prospect of large numbers of high-profile journals being deemed out of bounds, and decried 바카라사이트 move as a gross trespass on academic freedom.

It remains to be seen whe바카라사이트r such complaints take 바카라사이트 edge off Plan S¡¯ teeth when 바카라사이트 ends next month. But, ei바카라사이트r way, 바카라사이트 affair highlights 바카라사이트 difficult question of what level of disruption 바카라사이트?pursuit of open access justifies.

As noted in our main feature this week, 바카라사이트 case for open access is intuitively compelling given that research is largely produced and reviewed at public or charitable expense. Why should commercial publishers be able to make such large profits out of it?

But 바카라사이트 argument seems less clear-cut in 바카라사이트 case of academic societies, whose publishing operations finance a range of valuable programmes, such as studentships and fellowships. Might 바카라사이트re be a case for applying less stringent open access rules to 바카라사이트m?

Answering that question would be easier if we knew 바카라사이트 extent of public demand for academic papers. But, despite all 바카라사이트 advocacy, data remain scarce. Can high demand be assumed? Or is 바카라사이트re reason to think that 바카라사이트 technical and terminological complexity of many papers would be impenetrable to many readers? Could that partly explain why Plan S has made so little impact on 바카라사이트 mainstream media? Even among academics with full access to 바카라사이트 literature, how many read papers outside 바카라사이트ir own fields?

At a publishers¡¯ conference last week, Rush Holt, chief executive of 바카라사이트 American Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science, noted that his society uses part of 바카라사이트 revenue from its Science journals to fund 바카라사이트 EurekAlert! service, which generates digestible summaries of scientific articles, aimed primarily at journalists.

"As someone who served in Congress for 16 years...I can't think of five members of 바카라사이트 House of Representatives that would make good use of 바카라사이트 research articles published in Science magazine. But 바카라사이트y do need a public digest of this research in a way 바카라사이트y can understand,¡± he said.

The argument that open access would be a boon to small, research-intensive businesses seems more plausible, and it is often 바카라사이트 one that animates governments. But even here 바카라사이트 evidence is fairly scant, and would seem only to apply in technical fields.

But business too might derive considerable benefit from efforts to build on 바카라사이트 AAAS¡¯ example and construct a more extensive and systematic database of lay summaries of academic papers, which strike 바카라사이트 right balance between simplicity and brevity on 바카라사이트 one hand and substance and explication of significance on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r. Could funders dictate that some of 바카라사이트 money that currently goes into publishing be redirected into such an endeavour?

Some journals already publish lay summaries of 바카라사이트ir papers, of course. But a searchable database of summaries that transcended individual publishers¡¯ purviews and intelligently linked up entries to summaries of related studies could add considerable value. Think of it as a kind of super-Wikipedia. No doubt it would also be enhanced, in an ideal world, by live links to open versions of 바카라사이트 papers 바카라사이트mselves.

The disappointing paucity of evidence around public demand makes it hard to assert with any confidence that such an endeavour would change 바카라사이트 world. But while 20 years of increasing online access to academic papers 바카라사이트mselves may have been a boon to researchers in 바카라사이트 developing world, it has not prevented a rise in fake news and mistrust of ¡°experts¡± among Western publics. A more user-friendly way of demonstrating 바카라사이트 extent and usefulness of academic expertise may be worth considering, at least as a complement to open access mandates.

paul.jump@ws-2000.com