Open Access
Open Access
For an update of trends in 2006: http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-07.htm
Characteristics of Open Access
Open Access, as defined by Peter Suber in his Open Access Overview (excerpt):
Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
- OA removes price barriers (subscriptions, licensing fees, pay-per-view fees) and permission barriers (most copyright and licensing restrictions). The PLoS shorthand definition —"free availability and unrestricted use"— succinctly captures both elements.
- There is some flexibility about which permission barriers to remove. For example, some OA providers permit commercial re-use and some do not. Some permit derivative works and some do not. But all of the major public definitions of OA agree that merely removing price barriers, or limiting permissible uses to "fair use" ("fair dealing" in the UK), is not enough.
- Here's how the Budapest Open Access Initiative put it: "There are many degrees and kinds of wider and easier access to this literature. By 'open access' to this literature, we mean its free availability on the public internet, permitting any users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search, or link to the full texts of these articles, crawl them for indexing, pass them as data to software, or use them for any other lawful purpose, without financial, legal, or technical barriers other than those inseparable from gaining access to the internet itself. The only constraint on reproduction and distribution, and the only role for copyright in this domain, should be to give authors control over the integrity of their work and the right to be properly acknowledged and cited."
- Here's how the Bethesda and Berlin statements put it: For a work to be OA, the copyright holder must consent in advance to let users "copy, use, distribute, transmit and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship...."
- The Budapest (February 2002), Bethesda (June 2003), and Berlin (October 2003) definitions of "open access" are the most central and influential for the OA movement. Sometimes I call refer to them collectively, or to their common ground, as the BBB definition.
- While removing price barriers without removing permission barriers is not enough for full OA under the BBB definition, there's no doubt that price barriers constitute the bulk of the problem for which OA is the solution. Removing price barriers alone will give most OA proponents most of what they want and need.
- In addition to removing access barriers, OA should be immediate, rather than delayed, and should apply to full-text, not just to abstracts or summaries.
(See the rest of this document at http://www.earlham.edu/%7Epeters/fos/overview.htm)
Open Access Infrastructures
“Today Open Access infrastructure comes in several forms. Of course there is some self-archiving by the authors but throughout the conference this has not even been mentioned. The next step of concentration are institutional repositories where a scientific institute gathers the publications of that institute." (http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/Oekonux/Research/ReportBerlin4)
Typology
Author vs. Publisher Archiving
"Two models. The first is a system in which the author of an academic paper pays a journal publisher for his or her peers to review the research, and for the publishing team to edit the work and market the research. In reality, it is not the academic who would pay but the organisation that funds the research, such as the British Heart Foundation or a research council. The Public Library of Science, the US-based publisher of scientific and medical journals, announced it would adopt this model in 2002 to give its scientists more choice and control over the way their work was published.
The second is a system in which an academic posts his or her research paper on the university's database - known as a repository - for all academics and the general public to see via the internet once the paper has been accepted by a journal. This is known as "author archiving"." (http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,,2011324,00.html)
OA for Data vs. OA for publications
"The research production cycle has three components: the conduct of the research itself (R), the data (D), and the peer-reviewed publication (P) of the findings. Open Access (OA) means free online access to the publications (P-OA), but OA can also be extended to the data (D-OA): the two hurdles for D-OA are that not all researchers want to make their data OA and that the online infrastructure for D-OA still needs additional functionality. In contrast, all researchers, without exception, do want to make their publications P-OA, and the online infrastructure for publication-archiving (a worldwide interoperable network of OAI [1]-compliant Institutional Repositories [IRs][2]) already has all the requisite functionality for this." (http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/incentivizing-the-open-access-research-web/)
Open Access Initiatives
Declarations
Budapest Open Access Initiative
• February 2002 • http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml • Probably the first initiative also probably coining the term "Open Access" to a wider audience.
Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing
• June 2003 • http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm • Has some stronger focus on the money side.
Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities
• October 2003 • http://oa.mpg.de/openaccess-berlin/berlindeclaration.html • Restricts paper copies to those needed for private use. • Includes the topic of cultural heritage in parallel to scientific information
These declaration are also known as the BBB declarations.
Scientific institutions can sign these declarations to demonstrate their support of Open Access. (http://en.wiki.oekonux.org/Oekonux/Research/ReportBerlin4)
The DC Principles, at http://www.dcprinciples.org/
Open Access in Science: Progress report
By Derek Law
URL = http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue46/law/
"The Open Access debate has made much less marked progress in the last decade. The tireless proselytising of a host of John the Baptist-like figures from Paul Ginsparg to Stevan Harnad has been unceasing throughout that period, has won many battles, has chipped away at the edifice of scholarly communication, has moved the debate from the fringes of discourse to the mainstream, has probably won the argument, but so far has not won the war. A decade ago Joshua Lederberg, the eminent scientist and Nobel prize-winner talked of the change in technology at a UNESCO sponsored meeting and said:
'Now what are some of the foreseeable consequences? I really have nothing to ask of the print publishers or of the "for profit" electronic purveyors. Unless they are very selective - and they sometimes will be - about their value added, they will fall of their own weight as scientists become empowered to manage their own communications without the benefit of intermediaries.'
This simply has not happened in mainstream science. Although Swan's work has demonstrated the willingness of researchers to deposit articles in repositories, this has tended to be a passive rather than an active agreement, judging by the thin population of most institutional repositories. Open Access journals have also grown in numbers. In November 2005, the Directory of Open Access Journals [3] lists almost 1900 open access journals. But open access is a long way from being at the heart of scholarly communication and is ranged against large commercial forces in the STM (Scientific, Technical and Medical) publishing area; and although optimists will feel that the tide has turned on Open Access and that moves such as the much heralded but still awaited Research Councils' mandating of deposit will tip the balance, it has to be acknowledged that the UK scientific community looks more like donkeys led by lions (to paraphrase Max Hoffmann) than the reverse. The community looks remarkably unmoved by considerations of the future of scholarly communication. And yet it is common ground between at least some publishers and some proponents of open access that the present model is disintegrating and cannot survive [4]. It can be argued that the position in the UK is skewed by the Research Assessment Exercise. If that is the case it hardly affects what is a global problem and in any case should be self-correcting in two years time when the RAE is over. In sum then Open Access has made good progress (although as the mailing lists show there remains substantial confusion between the green and gold routes, between Open Access and Open Archives), but commercial STM publishing remains in rude and profitable health. And in an expanding market of scientific communication the commercial sector also continues to grow." (http://www.ariadne.ac.uk/issue46/law/)
Open Access to Journals
"Copyright monopolists naturally seek to limit access to ideas to keep their prices relatively high. No where is this phenomenon more obnoxious than in the case of scientific journals. Here research paid for by universities and government are tightly controlled by journal publishers - this despite the fact that the manuscripts are provided them for free, and the editorial services are largely free as well. At one time journals were by nature paper publications, and typesetting and printing were expensive operations. At that time, access was naturally limited by the number of paper copies, and although in recent years a small fee was charged for additional (xerox) copies, this fee was not difficult to avoid. With the advent of the internet, this system no longer makes sense, and rebellion is brewing in the scientific community." (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/oajournals.htm)
Open Access to Economics
"In the economics community, Ted Bergstrom has taken the lead, pointing out that scientific societies charge an order of magnitude less for their good journals than the one remaining commercial publisher (Elsevier) does for its not so good journals. He has started a campaign to reduce library costs. We have two small compaigns of our own: the NajEcon initiative of entirely web-based "not a journal," and the news aggregator, Economic Theory News. Promulgation of scientific research via the web has been aided by several other operations. NetEc is a volunteer organization that aims to index and document all economic research on the web. By providing formatted information (similar to news feeds) rather than free form organization, it makes it possible to construct news aggregators such as Economic Theory News, and answer question that Google cannot such as "let me browse interesting work in theoretical economics from the last several months."
There are also three noteworthy non-free projects. JSTOR has created electronic copies of back issues of the major non-commercial journals. Unfortunately, while it once served to make research more available, and still makes back articles that appeared in the non-commercial journal more available than those that appeared in commercial journals, it has long since covered its startup cost, and now serves to obstruct rather than enhance scientific communication through its closed access model. The Social Science Research Network collects various articles in economics and other disciplines and archives them, making some available for free, and other for ridiculously high prices. Whether it server overall to make research more or less available is hard to say. Similarly the BEJournals are online journals that started in an apparent effort to widen access, but seem now to be little different than any other journal.
By far the most exciting development is that of open access journals. An open access journal makes scientific research freely available over the web. That means that anyone can access the information for free, and that the information, unprotected by passwords or other proprietary devices, can be indexed by Google and the other major search engines, so that the information is easy to find. The Public Library of Science is a broad scientific initiative to create open access journals. Within economics, sadly but not unpredictably, the major scientific societies have been slow to move to the open access model. However there are a few bright lights - bear in mind that by having a paper published in one of these journals, your paper will be more widely available than if you publish in a better known journal - and in 10 years time, not only will your paper be more widely available, but the journal may have become better known than the currently famous journals that are killing themselves through closed access." (http://levine.sscnet.ucla.edu/general/intellectual/oajournals.htm)
Discussion
For space considerations, we opened up a separate page Open Access - Discussion
It contains the following articles:
- 1 The benefits of open access to science
- 2 Open Access: Why We Should Have It
- 3 The Capitalist Case for Open Access
- 4 Stevan Harnad on the differences between open access to code, text, and data
- 5 Steven Harnad: Open Access does not threaten Peer Review
- 6 A Plea for Caution
- 7 True Open Access means Derivative Usage must be allowed
More information
OA Status Reports
Trends Favoring Open Access, overview by Peter Suber, at http://www.ctwatch.org/quarterly/articles/2007/08/trends-favoring-open-access/
Another summary here at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/01-02-07.htm
2007 Overview, by Peter Suber, at http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=jep;view=text;rgn=main;idno=3336451.0011.110
Resources by Peter Suber
Open Access Overview http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm (Peter Suber's introduction to OA for those who are new to the concept)
Very Brief Introduction to Open Access http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/brief.htm (like the above, but prints on just one page)
Open Access News blog http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html (Peter Suber's blog, updated daily)
SPARC Open Access Newsletter http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm (Peter Suber's newsletter, published monthly)
Writings on Open Access http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/oawritings.htm (Peter Suber's articles on OA)
Timeline of the open access movement http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm (Peter Suber's chronology of the landmark events)
What you can do to help the cause of open access http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/do.htm (Peter Suber's list of what individuals and institutions can do)
Declarations and Policy Papers
The Budapest Open Access Initiative aims to guarantee access to scienfitic materials, at : http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm ; the Science Commons initiative by Lawrence Lessig et al, at http://science.creativecommons.org/ ; International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications, at http://www.inasp.info/
Open Access no danger for peer review. Issue Brief against the PRISM propaganda by the Association of Research Libraries]
Open Access Depositories
- Open Access scientific journals are thriving; see the Directory of Open Access Journals at http://www.doaj.org/; the Directory of Open Access Repositories, http://www.opendoar.org/; the Open Archives Initiative, http://www.openarchives.org/
- Open access archives: the Los Alamos e-print archive, at http://www.arxiv.org/ ; Pub Med Central life sciences archive, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov; BioMed Central, http://www.biomedcentral.com/;
- The Public Library of Science aims to reorganize scientific publishing on an open model, at http://www.plos.org/; Wired discusses some of the difficulties of the project at http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,67797,00.html?
- The academic journal literature is accessible through Charles Bailey's Open Access Bibliography, ARL, 2005, at http://www.escholarlypub.com/oab/oab.htm
More:
Literature
Open Access Bibliography at http://www.escholarlypub.com/oab/oab.htm
Open access publishing: A developing country view, by Jennifer I. Papin-Ramcharan and Richard A. Dawe http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/papin/
Strategies for developing sustainable open access scholarly journals, by
David J. Solomon http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue11_6/solomon/
Scholarly Electronic Publishing Bibliography, at http://www.digital-scholarship.com/sepb/sepb.html
OAIster, at http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/OAIster
Open Access Webliography, at http://www.escholarlypub.com/cwb/oaw.htm
Open Access News Blog, by Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/fosblog.html
SPARC Open Access Newsletter, by Peter Suber http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/newsletter/archive.htm
Key Books To Read
The following books were chosen from a list provided by Peter Suber.
Book 1. Open Access to Knowledge / Libre accès aux savoirs. Francis André. Futuribles, Perspectives, 72 pages, 2005
"If open-source software has shown the importance of skill sharing, it is part of a broader issue: the progress of thought, and therefore of science, depends primarily on the freedom to communicate and exchange ideas. Thus the importance of the international initiative in favour of open access to scientific works that challenges a commercial publishing system where some publishers can claim a quasi-monopoly. Francis André is a major player of this movement of utmost importance for Southern countries and ultimately for the overall global development of innovation." (comment from http://www.futuribles.com/home.html)
Book 2: John Willinsky, The Access Principle: The Case for Open Access to Research and Scholarship, MIT Press, 2005.
"Questions about access to scholarship go back farther than recent debates over subscription prices, rights, and electronic archives suggest. The great libraries of the past -- from the fabled collection at Alexandria to the early public libraries of nineteenth-century America -- stood as arguments for increasing access. In The Access Principle, John Willinsky describes the latest chapter in this ongoing story -- online open access publishing by scholarly journals -- and makes a case for open access as a public good. A commitment to scholarly work, writes Willinsky, carries with it a responsibility to circulate that work as widely as possible: this is the access principle. In the digital age, that responsibility includes exploring new publishing technologies and economic models to improve access to scholarly work. Wide circulation adds value to published work; it is a significant aspect of its claim to be knowledge. The right to know and the right to be known are inextricably mixed. Open access, argues Willinsky, can benefit both a researcher-author working at the best-equipped lab at a leading research university and a teacher struggling to find resources in an impoverished high school. Willinsky describes different types of access -- the New England Journal of Medicine, for example, grants open access to issues six months after initial publication, and First Monday forgoes a print edition and makes its contents immediately accessible at no cost. He discusses the contradictions of copyright law, the reading of research, and the economic viability of open access. He also considers broader themes of public access to knowledge, human rights issues, lessons from publishing history, and "epistemological vanities." The debate over open access, writes Willinsky, raises crucial questions about the place of scholarly work in a larger world -- and about the future of knowledge."
John Willinsky is Pacific Press Professor of Literacy and Technology at the University of British Columbia. He is the author of Empire of Words: The Reign of the OEDand a developer of Open Journals Systems software.