Harvard University's decision to ask faculty members to make their papers available in the university's open-access repository and choose open-access journals or those with reasonable subscription costs is a sign that the movement for affordable research is gaining ground. Harvard spends close to $3.75 million a year to subscribe to journals from large publishing houses. If this well funded university finds it “fiscally unsustainable” to continue paying such heavy subscription fees, the plight of less well-funded universities in developed countries and almost every institution in developing countries can well be imagined. The Ivy League institution's bold decision could turn out to be a harbinger of similar initiatives being adopted by other major universities. Last year, many novel strategies were adopted by institutions and governments seeking to reduce their dependence on publishing houses that wield ultimate control over the dissemination of scientific information. In September 2011, Princeton adopted a path-breaking policy to retain nonexclusive rights, except in certain cases, to papers published by its faculty. This will provide the University unmitigated freedom to make the research work freely accessible to researchers. The power of collective bargaining in bringing publishers to their knees was demonstrated last year when Research Libraries UK, acting on behalf of 30 member libraries, forced a price negotiation with two leading publishers. The British government made no bones about its keenness to make all research funded by it freely available when it announced its policy in December last year.
The British government's decision parallels that of the National Institutes of Health in the United States. The rationale is simple: taxpayers have a right to freely access the results of research carried out using their money. In fact, journals do not pay for the research; it's the same with researchers carrying out the work and scientists who peer-review the papers. But by virtue of being the gatekeepers of precious information, subscription-based journals charge a heavy fee. Publishers are now finding the tide turning against them as they maintain profit margins of “35 per cent and more.” Elsevier, in end February 2012 withdrew its support for the Research Works Act pending before Congress due to biting criticism and a boycott call by nearly 10,000 researchers. It may be a long battle, but thanks to the internet, open access will finally emerge victorious.
Keywords: Harvard University, information technology, open-access information, research papers, internet
@Kanchi, Being a researcher, though not a senior one which perhaps you are, I am confused when people quote peer-review as a reason behind commercial journals' successes. Whereas we all know very well, that almost everything in this pipeline- writing, self-formatting, reviewing, resubmitting, rebuttal - is done by the researchers themselves and for FREE. So if an open-access journal is popular, there is no reason to believe that quality would be lacking. Or is it? There is another point. At least in EU, the primary logic behind open-access research is that we are funded by tax-payers' money. Hence I find exorbitant prices of these journals as "cheating" on public money.
Some readers seem to have confused the expression "a blow for" with "a blow to." While the former means to do something to support an idea or to change a situation to something which you believe is good, the latter refers to an event that causes sadness or disappointment. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with the title of the editorial. "A blow for open access" means a support for open access.
In the context of escalating subscripion costs, you contend indeed for a noble cause.
Knowledge is not for making money but for the progress and development of humanity. Indeed there should be some thing to promote the research and also a way to reimburse the money spent in research and experiments. But nowadays with licenses and patents big corporations are denying the basic right of humans to get the knowledge.
The article should more aptly be titled "a bugle for open access",
rather than a blow; as it covers mainly the promotion of free
publications of research done at universities.
Title should have "A boost for open access"!
A very brave decision indeed. all colleges cannot afford the subscription fees. besides some of the journals come in as late as six months. the online subscription fees are also sky high. There is no way an ordinary graduate can afford all these.
There can be no limits or gates for knowledge.
Good Idea
Although I agree with the essence of the text of editorial, I do feel that the title's term "blow" (could be positive or negative) should have been avoided. It is true that because of the Internet, open access media have been getting well-established. At the same time, several of such open-accessed electronic publications are not peer-reviewed and lack quality control. As a botanical editor, I frequently encounter poorly written texts.
Please Email the Editor