Splendid evidence-based rebuttal by John Houghton. -- SH
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 17:43:41 EDT
From: John Houghton <John.Houghton_at_vu.edu.au>
To: liblicense-l_at_lists.yale.edu
Subject: Re: The Value of OA
Peter, et al. Publishers have an understandable interest in the
existence or otherwise of access difficulties. Obviously, the
marginal benefit of OA depends , in part, on the size of the
margin. Perhaps we should begin with some evidence.
Three references spring to mind:
1. In a survey of more than 5,500 senior researchers, Rowlands
and Nicholas (2005, p23) found that almost 74% thought that =93high
prices made it difficult to access the journal literature.=94
Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. (2005) /New Journal Publishing
Models: An international survey of senior researchers,/ CIBER
report for the Publishers Association and the International
Association of STM Publishers, p23. Available
http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/papers/dni-20050925.pdf.
2. Sparks (2005, pp26-28) appeared to report that almost half of
the 750 researchers she surveyed reported having problems gaining
access to the resources they needed for their research, with more
than half in medical and biological sciences (52.5%) and arts and
humanities (53.4%) reporting difficulties. The major reported
problems were access to journal articles, books and conference
proceedings. Of those reporting difficulties, between 80% and 90%
of researchers in medical and biological sciences, physical
sciences and social sciences said that their =93library did not
take the journals they needed to access for their work=94, as did
70% to 80% of those in languages, arts and humanities. Sparks, S.
(2005) /JISC Disciplinary Differences Report,/ Rightscom, London.
Available
http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%2=
0Needs.doc.
3. Reporting on an extensive review of the evidence EPS et al.
(2006, p11) noted that "All researchers appear to have similar
levels of access to the journal materials they need. The issue of
ease of access to journals shows little meaningful variation by
discipline =96 around 50% of all researchers, regardless of
discipline, experience problems. " EPS (2006) /UK scholarly
journals: 2006 baseline report =96 An evidence-based analysis of
data concerning scholarly journal publishing/, RIN, RCUK and DTI,
p11. Available
http://www.rin.ac.uk/data-scholarly-journals.
By way of triangulation, a 50% to 75% reported access difficulty
correlates pretty well with the additional level of citation of
OA articles reported by many studies (e.g. the open citation
project, at
http://opcit.eprints.org/). And, of course, some
proportion of the benefits of OA may relate to non-university
based researchers (e.g. in smaller firms in biotechnology,
electronics, engineering, management consulting, etc.).
In regard to costs and benefits, there are a number of people
looking into the issue of the relative costs and benefits of toll
versus open access. Our own work in Australia is one example.
Houghton, J.W. Steele, C. & Sheehan, P.J. (2006) /Research
Communication Costs in Australia, Emerging Opportunities and
Benefits/, Department of Education, Science and Training,
Canberra. Available
http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485.
See also the Economic and Social Impacts of OA agenda at
http://www.cfses.com/projects/Easi-OA.htm.
<
http://www.cfses.com/projects/Easi-OA.htm>
Like you, I think it is an area where we really do need to move
from statements to evidence.
<
http://www.dest.gov.au/sectors/research_sector/policies_issues_reviews/key=
_issues/australian_research_information_infrastructure_committee/documents/=
dest_research_communications_cost_report_sept2006_pdf.htm>Regards,
John Houghton
Centre for Strategic Economic Studies (CSES), Victoria University
John.Houghton E-mail:
john.houghton_at_vu.edu.au Web: www.cfses.com
Peter Banks wrote:
> Rick Anderson's editorial in the most recent Learned Publishing
> (http://www.alpsp.org/ngen_public/article.asp?aid=3D723) is an
> excellent summary of the potential benefits and costs of open
> access.
>
> However, like most commentators, Anderson takes the value of OA
> as a given: "There is no question that OA offers potentially
> significant benefits to society. All other things being equal,
> free public access to scientific information is clearly a good
> thing." I think that this common assumption merits a far more
> critical examination than it has received.
>
> The assumption that the more information, the better, is shared
> by the OA movement's new partner FreeCulture.org, whose manifesto
> states: "Through the democratizing power of digital technology
> and the Internet, we can place the tools of creation and
> distribution, communication and collaboration, teaching and
> learning into the hands of the common person -- and with a truly
> active, connected, informed citizenry, injustice and oppression
> will slowly but surely vanish from the earth."
>
> One has to admire the youthful optimism of that lofty statement,
> as Utopian in its own way as the Port Huron Statement of an
> earlier generation of radical students. But communications is
> already in the hands of the common person; any idiot (including
> me) can have a blog, a Web page, or a podcast. I haven't noticed
> injustice, oppression, or ignorance retreating much. If anything,
> the democratization of communications has given a platform to the
> zealous, the partisan, and sometimes the deranged. The
> 'connected, informed citizenry' often seems to use Internet
> technology for tasks like deconstructing the latest American Idol
> episode or speculating on the death of Anna Nicole Smith.
>
> But even if democratic communications probably won't save mankind
> for its worst tendencies, can access to scientific information
> accelerate research, improve clinical practice, or increase the
> understanding by patients and the public of science and medicine?
>
> In talking with researchers at major research institutions, I
> have yet to meet a single one who felt that access to information
> was a limiting factor in research. Perhaps free access to
> information will help those in less connected locations --
> non-research colleges, remote medical practices, developing
> countries. Perhaps. It would be good to actually examine this
> idea rather than accepting it as a given. It might be that free
> access to original research has a small effect -- but some other
> form of Internet communication would have a far more significant
> effect. Suppose, for example, that every clinician had access to
> information such as that in the Cochrane Collaboration and could
> easily and efficiently access the latest and best evidence-based
> medicine. Isn't that likely to be of far greater value than
> assuming that physicians have time to wade through primary
> literature? (They don't.)
>
> As for the public and patients, there has been too little
> examination of how lay people use and misuse Internet
> information. This is NOT a paternalistic argument for withholding
> information, so please don't accuse me of elitism. It is an
> argument to critically examine how people use information, and to
> elucidate the ways in which it either empowers or misleads them.
>
> One has only to troll the many Internet message boards about
> various diseases to appreciate how often patients attempt to use
> the literature to self-diagnose or self-medicate, sometimes
> delaying seeking a medical consultation for ominous symptoms for
> months or years. Again, perhaps access to the primary literature
> would have a small effect, but some other form of translation
> (clinically significant research with translational materials,
> say) might have a much greater effect.
>
> The study of how information changes research, practice, and
> understanding is too important to remain unexamined or to remain
> the untested given of the open access movement.
>
> (PS "The Port Huron Statement" is under strict copyright
> protection by the University of Virginia. That is, the defining
> statement of 1960s student radicalism is effectively in a glass
> case in a museum. Watch out, Free Culture, before you, too,
> become a cultural artifact.)
>
> Peter Banks
> Banks Publishing
> Publications Consulting and Services
> pbanks_at_bankspub.com
> www.bankspub.com
> www.associationpublisher.com/blog/
---2071850956-1059586373-1175634926=:26480--
Received on Wed Apr 04 2007 - 01:48:34 BST