The claim is often made that researchers (peers) have as much access to peer-reviewed research publications as they need -- that if there is any need for further access at all, it is not the peers who need it, but the general public.
1. Functionally, it doesn't matter whether open access (OA) is provided for peers or for public, because OA means that everyone gets access. 2. Strategically, however, it does matter, because currently OA is *not* being provided in anywhere near sufficient numbers spontaneously by researchers (peers). 3. This means that policies (mandates) from peers' institutions and funders are needed to induce peers to provide OA to their publications. 4. This means that credible and valid reasons must be found for peers' institutions and funders to mandate providing.OA. 5. For some fields of research -- especially health-relevant research -- public access is a strong reason for public funders to mandate providing public access. 6. But that still leaves all the rest of research, in all disciplines, funded and unfunded. 7. Most research is technical, intended to be used and applied by peer researchers in building further research and applications -- to the benefit of the general public. 8. But most peer-reviewed research reports themselves are neither understandable nor of direct interest to the general public as reading matter. 9. Hence, for most research, "public access to publicly funded research," is not reason enough for providing OA, nor for mandating that OA be provided. 10. The evidence that the primary intended users of peer-reviewed research -- researchers -- do not have anywhere near enough access is two-fold: 11. For many years, the ARL published statistics on the journal subscription/license access of US research universities: http://fisher.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/arlbin/arl.cgi?task=setupstats 12. The fraction of journals that any university can afford to access via subscriptions.licenses has since become smaller, despite the "Big Deals: 13. The latest evidence comes from the university that can afford the largest fraction of journals: Harvard University http://isites.harvard.edu/icb/icb.do?keyword=k77982&tabgroupid=icb.tabgroup143448 14. Researchers' careers and funding as well as research progress depend on the accessibility, uptake and impact of the research output. 15. Open Access maximizes accessibility and enhances update and impact. http://opcit.eprints.org/oacitation-biblio.html 16. Hence peer access, rather than just public access, is the reason (all) researchers (funded and unfunded, in all disciplines) should provide OA -- and the reason their institutions and funders should mandate that they provide OA. Stevan Harnad Enabling Open Scholarship http://www.openscholarship.org
