GENERATION Y is a sucker for instant gratification, seen in its mass acceptance of online chatting, text messaging, and Web sites like YouTube and Google. Effects of new technologies have trickled into the scientific community as well, first prompting the compilation of online journals and now inspiring a call for free, open access to published research papers. This movement — led by groups like the Public Library of Science, a non-profit advocate that runs an open access online database — sparks an important debate that will affect both the publishing community and the public at large. Researchers and policy-making institutions need to look past the façade of free availability and convenience in order to see the negative implications that open access publishing has for scientific progress.
The standard protocol for bringing research findings into light is simple: Scientists submit their findings to journals, which one must pay a fee to read, in exchange for recognition and prestige in a field where publication is vital. The open access movement stems from the noble intention of removing this price barrier, but it fails to address the full situation.
One commonly overlooked factor is the proposal’s cost. In an article on the subject, The Economist points out that “the catch [of open access publishing] is that the sponsors of research will have to fork out more money to pay for it.” The piece then goes on to report “the Public Library of Science ... lost almost $1m last year. As a result, it is about to increase its charge [to research sponsors] from $1,500 per article to as much as $2,500.” This won’t discourage researchers from publishing, as it is integral to their profession, but the price hike will affect their budgets, harming the research itself. In addition, much of the research in the United States is publicly financed. More costs for researchers translate into either a decline in the number of grants awarded or higher taxes. Researcher and Chemistry Professor Lester S. Andrews believes that “society journals should have high professional standards and no fees.” In order to eliminate fees for both publishers and readers, the government ought to enter into an agreement with journals and other databases: Readers could receive tax breaks (therefore increasing the number of paying subscribers) if part of the revenues gained by publication companies were shared with the government. Given the issues our world faces, it is unwise to set up financial roadblocks for researchers working to solve the problems.
Another question is whether more available information is a good thing. At first glance, it seems to be true, as open access would provide researchers with more sources. Yet research conducted by Dr. James Evans of the University of Chicago suggests otherwise.
In his experiment, information was taken from “the most complete source of citation data available” and the data showed that, ironically, “as more journal issues came online, the articles referenced tended to be more recent, fewer journals and articles were cited, and more of those citations were to fewer journals and articles,” according to his report, “Electronic Publication and the Narrowing of Science and Scholarship.” Evans muses that this is due to the methodology of finding information: using online searches and following hyperlinks instead of “the forced browsing of print archives,” which could lead to unexpected discoveries by making researchers peruse papers only distantly related to their area of expertise. Evans argues that “this may accelerate consensus and narrow the range of findings and ideas built upon.”
In addition, open access publishing would turn scientific journals into professional Wikipedias and compromise their quality. By requiring all research to be published openly, higher-value articles would become lost among the barrage of lesser findings. Supporters of open-access publishing attempt to compensate by using peer reviews to judge the articles, but peer review is commonplace already; the system will struggle to absorb the additional supply of papers. In order to sort out the mass of information available due to open access publishing, boundaries between disciplines would solidify, making it harder to relate important discoveries to society in general.
Open access publishing seems to be a faster way for researchers to get the answers they need. But if we already knew the answers we needed, there would be no point of research in the first place. By failing to account for all the variables, open access publishing violates the scientific method itself.
Mitch Ross is a Cavalier Daily Viewpoint Writer.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | January 13, 2025After all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
