I've written before that I think open access is an undeniable public good and that I'm not convinced that an "author pays" model is sustainable. As a result, I was taken aback when I read this letter from Raghavendra Gadagkar of the Centre for Ecological Sciences, Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore (Open-access more harm than good in developing world. Nature 453:450; 2008)..
Ingrid Robeyns suggested a couple of months ago that open-access will benefit the developing world by "closing the global inequalities in access to education...[and helping]to improve the quality of the papers being produced by scholars living and working in the South, which in turn increases their chance of being published in what we consider quality journals." In contrast, Gadagkar argues that "Page charges make extra difficulties for authors, while the old problems associated with peer review persist. They could be disastrous for the underdeveloped world, encouraging people to remain as consumers (readers), rather than to become producers (authors) of knowledge."
Ingrid Robeyns suggested a couple of months ago that open-access will benefit the developing world by "closing the global inequalities in access to education...[and helping]to improve the quality of the papers being produced by scholars living and working in the South, which in turn increases their chance of being published in what we consider quality journals." In contrast, Gadagkar argues that "Page charges make extra difficulties for authors, while the old problems associated with peer review persist. They could be disastrous for the underdeveloped world, encouraging people to remain as consumers (readers), rather than to become producers (authors) of knowledge."
Gadagkar makes two particularly salient points:
I'm embarassed to admit that the second point hadn't occurred to me. Even if funding agencies are willing to provide enough support to authors they fund to cover the cost of those they don't, unfunded authors are "depending on the kindness of strangers." And depending in that way could be humiliating and demeaning. That's why Gadagkar argues author-pays open access may "encourage people to remain as consumers (readers), rather than to become producers (authors) of knowledge."
I'm a little more hopeful than Gadagkar. The success of open source software (Linux, GNU, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.) suggests that a lot of people (myself included) don't feel too guilty about depending on the kindness of others.1 I hope that if we find a way to make open access financially sustainable those without the means to support the system finanically will recognize that their scholarly contributions are even more important and that they will feel like the full, important participants in the system that they are.
In the end I still think that open access is a friend who needs our help and support, but Gadagkar has identified another important issue that we must attend to as we work towards that goal.
1I'm composing this post in Firefox in a text window provided by the free version of MovableType on a Linux box running Perl, PHP, and Apache.
- "Page charges may be waived for authors who cannot afford to pay, but a model that depends on payment by authors can afford only a few such waivers."
- "[W]hy should anyone want to survive on charity?"
I'm embarassed to admit that the second point hadn't occurred to me. Even if funding agencies are willing to provide enough support to authors they fund to cover the cost of those they don't, unfunded authors are "depending on the kindness of strangers." And depending in that way could be humiliating and demeaning. That's why Gadagkar argues author-pays open access may "encourage people to remain as consumers (readers), rather than to become producers (authors) of knowledge."
I'm a little more hopeful than Gadagkar. The success of open source software (Linux, GNU, OpenOffice, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc.) suggests that a lot of people (myself included) don't feel too guilty about depending on the kindness of others.1 I hope that if we find a way to make open access financially sustainable those without the means to support the system finanically will recognize that their scholarly contributions are even more important and that they will feel like the full, important participants in the system that they are.
In the end I still think that open access is a friend who needs our help and support, but Gadagkar has identified another important issue that we must attend to as we work towards that goal.
1I'm composing this post in Firefox in a text window provided by the free version of MovableType on a Linux box running Perl, PHP, and Apache.
Leave a comment