[Exchange posted with permission]
On Tue, 15 Aug 2006, Ana Alice Baptista wrote:
> I read this and the first thing that
> came to my mind was that it seems that everybody wins with OA -
> it seems quite reasonable to me that OA fosters scientific progress
> and that it generates some (not small) economic revenue for
> countries. But... will this be true for all countries? What will
> happen to less-developed countries? Will the promise of reducing
> the scientific digital divide through OA come true? Won't
> developed countries' scientific impact continue to grow in comparison
> to others?
>
> I have an answer on which I would like to ask you to comment:
> I think that maybe in the short term developed countries' scientific
> impact will grow in comparison to others but, in the long term I think
> that it is reasonable to expect an increasing impact from the "other
> side of the planet" too, for one reason:
> The developing world will have open access to
> "fresh" research results and this may foster scientific development
> (and communication, I hope!) not only in developed countries but also
> in the developing ones.
> However, a way to make the developing world's research results
> available at no cost is still needed - I still don't believe in the
> author-pays model: it may work for some authors from developed
> countries, but the opportunities are not the same as for us.
>
> What do you think about this?
You asked:
(1) Does OA benefit the developing world?
(2) Will the benefit last?
(3) What about the affordability of "author-pays" publishing?
(1) OA benefits everyone -- authors and users, developed world and
developing world, short-term and long-term.
The author benefit is increased impact; the user benefit is increased
access (and users are also authors!). Financial benefits are to the
author (research funding, salary, promotion), to the author's institution
(research overheads, prestige), and to the public that funds the research
(research progress, applications, technology, culture).
This is just as true of the developing world -- perhaps moreso, for
inasmuch as developing world researchers and research are handicapped
by access limits, these are lifted by OA. And inasmuch as their impact is
handicapped by visibility and access limits, that too is enhanced (in a
cycle, producing better and better research, as you suggested). Of course
lower quality work, whether in the developed world or the developing
world, will not be more used and cited even if it is more accessible,
but the better the work the more it will benefit.
So I do not think OA will produce a "Matthew Effect," (making the rich
get richer and the poor get poorer) except with respect to the quality
of the research: At last the higher quality research will get its full
due usage and impact, no longer constrained by affordability factors.
(2) There is no reason to think this will only be a short-term effect: On
the contrary, inasmuch as it increases research access, usage, impact,
productivity and progress, it should be a growing effect. (The only
thing that will definitely vanish with 100% OA is the component of the
OA impact advantage that is the *competitive* advantage of OA articles
over non-OA articles. The competitive advantages are there now, but they
will diminish as OA increases.)
OA Impact Advantage = EA + (AA) + (QB) + QA + (CA) + UA
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/29-guid.html
(3) As to economics: I am an advocate of author self-archiving in the
first instance. This can be done by any author. There is no "author
pays" issue.
I think OA journals are a good experiment to try now, but they are
premature as a general solution while there is still a demand for the
paper edition and while all institutional funds are tied up in journal
subscriptions. Moreover, "author pays" is a misnomer. Not only do most
OA journals make their online version accessible free without charging
authors, but if and when all journals convert to OA (because
institutions are no longer paying for subscriptions) then the
publication costs for an institution's authors will be paid by the
institution for them their own windfall subscription savings (and there
will be plenty of savings left over).
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmselect/cmsctech/399/399we152.htm
On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ana Alice Baptista wrote:
> That's good to hear. I agree with you regarding the improbability of
> the Matthew Effect on research impact.
>
> I hope you are right regarding the probability of the Matthew effect
> on research quality. :-)
> > (2) There is no reason to think this is only a short-term effect:
> > On the contrary, inasmuch as it increases research access, usage, impact,
> > productivity and progress, it should be a growing effect. (The only
> > thing that will definitely vanish with 100% OA is the component of the
> > OA impact advantage that is the *competitive* advantage of OA articles
> > over non-OA articles. The competitive advantages are there now, but
> > they will diminish as OA increases.)
>
> I am sorry. I think I didn't explain myself very well. I was talking
> about the relative impact of scientific research (SR) from both the
> developed countries and the developing countries. I meant that maybe
> the relative impact of SR from developed countries will get even
> higher (if that is possible at all!) initially, but after a while
> the relative impact of SR from developing countries will probably increase.
>
> Or maybe this is wrong and the relative impact of SR from developing
> countries is already increasing.
>
> This is just speculation, of course, but I am thinking of all this
> literature we are making available. I look at our statistics
http://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/sdum/stats?level=general&type=access&group=1&no-form=true&no-menu=true)
> and I can't help thinking that we would never have so many readers
> of Brazilian research if we didn't have our work available in OA.
> However, we ourselves, in Brazil, don't have such dramatically increased
> access to our own Brazilian scientific literature.
> SciElo and other similar initiatives have brought much of
> their scientific literature to the rest of the world, but they still
> need to invest a lot in IRs. And when they do, their relative impact
> in the Ibero-American world too will increase a lot, I believe.
> (and not only there, of course)
I can't quite follow: SciElo makes Brazilian journal content available
free online to the whole world, but Brazil in particular does not gain
increased access to its own literature that way? Is that because
Brazilian researchers lack access to the Web? Then they need more access
to the Web. Institutional Repositories (IRs) will not remedy that -- but
they *will* remedy the problem of providing OA (for the whole world) to
Brazilian research that is *not* published in the SciElo journals!
(Surely not all Brazilian research is published in SciElo journals: Some
must be in international journals too. Do you know the percentages, by
field?)
> > (3) As to economics: I am an advocate of author self-archiving in the
> > first instance. This can be done by any author. There is no "author
> > pays" issue.
> >
> > I think OA journals are a good experiment to try now, but they are
> > premature as a general solution while there is still a demand for the
> > paper edition and while all institutional funds are tied up in journal
> > subscriptions. Moreover, "author pays" is a misnomer. Not only do most
> > OA journals make their online version accessible free without charging
> > authors, but if and when all journals convert to OA (because
> > institutions are no longer paying for subscriptions) then the
> > publication costs for an institution's authors will be paid by the
> > institution for them their own windfall subscription savings (and
> > there will be plenty of savings left over).
>
> Yes, I agree. However... :-) ... if most institutions from the
> developing world don't have money to pay for journal subscriptions,
> they still won't have it for paying authorship fees, right? I know
> this model prescribes free authorship for developing world authors,
> but do you REALLY believe this will happen to a large number of
> authors? Will they have exactly the same opportunities we will have?
> I believe other (more balanced) models will have to emerge.
Dear Ana, like many others, you are so preoccupied with OA journals
that you seem to be missing the essential point! I am talking about the
self-archiving, by authors, of *all* their articles -- whether published
in OA or non-OA journals -- in their own IRs, making them free for all.
That is the solution to concentrate on implementing today. It will
provide 100% OA, for one and all.
Only if and when subscriptions for journals should ever be cancelled
and all institutions, worldwide, get all their subscription money back,
will journals need to cover their remaining costs (mainly the cost of
implementing peer review) thought publication fees.
But by that time the remaining costs will be so small (relative to what
is being spent by institutions now for subscriptions and licenses) that
there will be enough to pay those costs out of institutional windfall
savings several times over.
And yes then there will REALLY be enough money so that authors from
institutions that cannot afford any publication charges at all will
be covered by a negligibly small surcharge to the vast majority of
institutions who will have more than enough to pay, with plenty of
windfall institutional subscription savings still left over,
Stevan Harnad
Received on Fri Aug 18 2006 - 04:07:59 BST