|
Open Access- the
buzzword seems to be attractive and interesting indeed. Getting
things for free is something irresistible, but as in all those
killer advertisements that run on our televisions, the notice in
fine print takes the charm away. In an attempt to create freely
accessible medical literature, I am afraid, something is going
wrong somewhere.
First of all, charging a
researcher an exorbitant fee for publishing his works does not
seem to be so attractive. [At least for the developing world]
The people behind the open Access Initiatives need to keep in
mind $1500 is still mind boggling to a researcher from the
developing world [and that is almost equal to the yearly pay of
an average researcher in many developing countries]. Most often
the research is funded from one’s own pocket, out of
motivation and dedication to the science [possibly unheard in
the western world]. This would mean what meager research these
talented researchers bring out would have to meet closed doors
when it comes to publication. Almost 25% of all researchers live
in the developing countries, but they publish less than 3% of
the total scientific articles published [1]. A non peer reviewed
article [2] on the acceptance rates of papers submitted to BMJ
pointed out that The acceptance rate for the period 1989-1998
was 7.9 for developing and 16.7% for developed countries
(x2=137.4, p. 001). In other words, articles from developed
countries were 2.1 (95% CI 1.8-2.4) times as likely to have
their articles accepted. The economic bias that would emerge in
the new publishing scenario would only worsen this situation.
Secondly researchers from the developing countries have not been
taken into confidence. The Budapest open access Initiative
signatory list speaks for it[ [LINKOUT]
& [LINKOUT]].
I am afraid that the researchers/organizations of the developing
world are severely kept away [possibly not informed] from the
initiative. I am also afraid that the high cost of publication
[with the already rising costs and sophistication of research]
would in turn promote ‘safari research’ in a big way, thus
depriving the researchers of the third world their last drop of
self-esteem.
I am afraid that the proposed
fee waiver for researchers who cannot afford would turn out to
be a marketing trick [eventually destabilizing the present model
and leaving it into the hands of a few newly emerging
monopolies]. The grants and funds that support the new
publication model would not be eternal. This would mean someday
when the grants are over, the amount of the fee waived and the
number of papers for which the fee is waived will solely depend
upon the economic motives [as profit] rather than scholarship
The new policy would threaten
the existence of smaller journals. I would add that the new
initiative would be the most harmful to journals published from
the developing countries. The journals published in developing
countries rely on the small profit [most of them cost about $4
per issue compared to the cost of single articles as high as
$16per article which I tried to access yesterday [LINKOUT]
, another clear evidence that we are thinking in the opposite
direction. The Initiative and the economic framework that would
emerge would eventually strip these journals of what little
profit (?) they generate. The present line of thought should be
directed on as to publish journals cost effectively. I also
share the disbelief that even with a $9million grant, they [the
PLoS] are charging $ 1500 per article.
I
don’t think the present publishing model is too bad to be
discarded. What is essentially needed is the optimization of
cost of publishing and creation of a differential pricing
system/access [which institutes in developed countries would
possibly object at any cost]. I am really amazed by the hue and
cry raised by the people in developed countries on the prices of
journals. It seems that they are rather unhappy that they are
not buying more , which would rather be perceived as sadistic to
many in the developing world. I personally know of many medical
libraries in developing countries in Africa and Asia who have
not bought a SINGLE foreign Medical journal last year due to
lack of funds. The propounders of the so-called Open access
would jump up to say “that is exactly what we are trying to
change”. And I would rather say there is still hope in the
existing system to create a change, without leaving anything in
fine print.
a)
Differential access is not something new or hard to
implement on the Internet. Researchers from developing countries
could access the literature free/ at a reasonable cost
b)
Differential pricing: Publishers could agree to provide journals
to developing countries at a subsidized cost, recovering the
damage by differentially pricing journals in developed countries
[which institutes in developed countries would possibly object
at any cost]
c) Provide free electronic archives through
PubMedCentral or any other open archive. d) Provide free
electronic access to all [like the BMJ]
What I would like to
emphasize here is that there are no ethical guidelines that
guide journal publication. The only motive that guides one to
publish a journal is PROFIT. There has been no attempt to
mobilize one’s own resources to free scholastic communication.
I had always wondered why anybody would start a Journal at
BioMedCentral [LINKOUT]
. Though the basic services like peer review and editing are
done free of cost, and a fee is charged for each article
published, the Journal eternally belongs to BioMedCentral [LINKOUT]
.Even at the lowest cost of as institutional membership at
BioMedCentral which costs $ 1550 per annum, [LINKOUT]
one could get the web space, domain and designed pages at a
fraction of that cost. For institutions, which own websites, the
publication cost can be still be lowered.
So we can formulate possible
alternative strategies to provide open access literature:
a)
Research institutions publish their research on their websites
in open access format.
b) Creation of a framework for such
publications to ensure uniformity &interoperability [RDF or
XML based meta data could be possibly used]
c) Creation of a
framework for Online Open peer review with utilization of
multiple modalities like Mailing Lists, Wikis etc]*, which would
in turn lead to direct publication by the author which would be
peer reviewed and published by the author himself, and at the
same time ensuring interoperability.
d) Promotions of
alternative methods like Net Prints and Research archives and
creation of frameworks for peer review and publication.
I am not
totally against the Open Access Initiatives, but afraid at the
fact that the Open access initiatives are treading the wrong
way. Alternative methods that would take into confidence
everybody involved is the need of the day. I am also of the
opinion that the Initiatives should go further and promote
research and formulate guidelines/frameworks rather than
directly intervene in a competitive field and potentially
destabilize the system. Technology should open up opportunities
in fulfilling this dream. And I am optimistic that new thoughts
would emerge to guide us through the dark.
REFERENCES
1) LaPorte RE. Internet server
with targeted access would cure information deficiency in
developing countries. BMJ;314:980
2) Scientific Colonialism and
Safari ResearchBenjamin Acosta-Cazares Edmund Browne Ronald E.
LaPorte Dieter Neuvians ,Kenneth Rochel de Camargo Roberto Tapia
Yang Ze clinmed/2000010008v1 (January 13, 2000)
3) *The Author
is working on formulating such a framework. Peer Review on the
authors open Journal utilizes Discussion Lists and is in the
process of utilizing the Wiki technology . [LINKOUT]
Competing interests:
The author owns VirtualMed and MedLib, and publishes an open
peer reviewed-open access journal ‘Health library Online’ on
the Medlib Website. He is also working towards creation of a
framework for direct publication and open peer review of
scholastic communication.
|
