It's important to be be more specific about the question under investigation here, surely:
When critics say 'there is no evidence that researchers WANT open access', do they mean: (1) "There is no evidence that researchers feel that a lack of open access to the literature in any significant way impedes their professional activity as researchers." We could call this 'Strong denial' of a demand for OA. [I don't think this is a straw man argument - Elsevier's statements do indeed seem to take this line.] Or do they mean (2) "There is no evidence that researchers are prepared to accept X, Y and Z as a price worth paying in return for open access.", where X, Y and Z are issues raised by critics as being risks associated with a movement to Open Access. We could call this 'Weak denial' of a demand for OA. It might be informative to survey researchers (including those in other countries) on both these issues. But (1) is by far the more fundamental and important question: is there a demand that is unsatisfied by the status quo, that implies, if nothing else, that there may be a better system of publishing than thee status quo, if only we could find it. (2) is a far less objective question. What X, Y and Z are depends entirely on who you ask. Open Access proponents (including, to judge from their public statement, major funders such Wellcome, HHMI and Max Planck) would say that X, Y and Z amount only to a sensible change in the way in which the costs of original research publishing are paid for, with (most likely) a progressive move away from library budgets, towards research funding budgets as the prime source. The extremist fringe of Open Access sceptics (from the 'Weak denial' camp) might claim that X, Y and Z amount to the disappearance of scientific societies as we know them, and the collapse of the edifice of scientific peer review. You're clearly going to get a completely different set of answers depending on what version of (2) you ask... So I would have thought that (1) would be the more useful question to ask. Matt == Matthew Cockerill Ph.D. Technical Director BioMed Central ( http://www.biomedcentral.com/ ) 34-42, Cleveland Street London W1T 4LB UK Tel 020 7631 9127 Fax: 020 7580 1938 Email: [email protected] > -----Original Message----- > From: American Scientist Open Access Forum > [mailto:[email protected]]On > Behalf Of Martin Frank > Sent: 24 October 2004 03:43 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Who Needs Open Access, and Why? > > > While it is appropriate to survey scientists to get their opinions, > it is also important to survey them in a way that clearly defines what > the potential impact of open access might be for them. While > they all want > free and unfettered access to the scientific literature, > something many of > them have through their institutional subscriptions, they > must recognize > that obtaining free access might result in significant cost to their > grants and institutions, and in the case of not-for-profit > publishers, > significant changes in the scientific societies that support > the production > of the journals, changes that might result in the elimination of the > support that societies provide for the next generation of scientists. > > If the survey truly provides information that allows for reasoned > decisions by the respondents, then a survey is worthwhile, > otherwise it > will not help any of us in our efforts to provide access as freely as > possible within the framework of our existing business and > publications > models. > > Martin Frank, Ph.D. > Executive Director > American Physiological Society > 9650 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, MD 20814-3991 > Tel: 301-634-7118 Fax: 301-634-7242 > Email: [email protected] > APS Home Page: http://www.The-APS.org/ > "...integrating the life sciences from molecule20 > to organism" > This email has been scanned by Postini. For more information please visit http://www.postini.com
