Open access fundamentalism

I've arrived! No, I'm not announcing my entry onto the blogging scene - though this is the inaugural posting. I'm referring to the description of me by a publishing industry representative, David Worlock, as both 'a fundamentalist' and 'shrill'. And what they say is that if people who disagree with you start calling you names, then they are taking you seriously.

Now first, let me say that I really like the 'fundamentalist' bit. I have always strived to avoid the superficial, speculative and emotional end of the spectrum and to base the views that I hold on facts, so far as I am able. So yes, I do fundamentalism. The 'shrill' label sits less easily, though. By the way, David was writing a critique of my recent invited essay for American Scientist on how Open Access can advance science. He was doing so in an article for Outsell Insights, a publication from Outsell Inc., for whom he is a senior researcher, that sells to the publishing industry.

So, let's examine 'shrill'. I was asked in my essay to define the ways in which Open Access advances science and there I was, thinking that I'd done so in moderated terms, supporting each point I was making with good data and reasoned argument. I detailed four ways in which science is advanced by Open Access: it enables greater visibility and, as a result, impact; it moves science along more quickly; it enables new 'Web 2.0' semantic technologies to work on scientific output, generating new knowledge by data-mining and text-mining scientific output in the vast single information space that Open Access provides ; and it enables new tools that can measure impact and effectiveness in brand new ways, a boon to research managers and funders across the world. Shrill? I don't think so.

David spends some time, on the other hand, describing the contribution of publishers to Open Access. And he explains why they are keen to move into the territory: "As publishers move to contain, embrace and even capitalise on the access and availability issues, they are doing so in ways that save time and energy for researchers whose concentration is upon the science involved, and its communication to small, close-knit communities of fellow workers whom they reach at conferences and via e-mail links."

See that? Dressed up as helping researchers manage their time, publishers (at least, the ones David is addressing: I know many others who do not share this attitude) are actually aiming to 'contain, embrace and even capitalise upon access and availability issues....'. Who would have thought it?

Worlock goes on to talk more about the marketplace, including pointing out that there are 'only' 2500 open access journals "though BioMed Central is in process of launching some more". Actually, it's bigger and more important than Worlock makes out. He paints a picture of near-stagnation, but things are moving fast. As predicted, a number of smaller publishers are now planning to move aggressively into the open access space, predominantly, but not solely, with article-processing-charge models. Yes, BioMed Central is in the process of 'launching some more', as Worlock puts it, though it would be more accurate to say that it is launching two whole new services - Chem Central and PhysMath Central - with a host of new journals in those disciplines. And Bentham, until now a subscription-based publisher, is about to project 300 new open access journals, across many disciplines, into the fray.

David finished his article with this comment: "FYI: Ms [sic] Swan´s article can be obtained from American Scientist in PDF for non-members of Sigma xi for $12." Was this a cheap jibe aimed at both me and at the publisher for charging for access to the PDF of this article? Surely not. David is too much of a gentleman for that. I expect he was simply directing his readers, the publishers who subscribe to Outsell Inc.'s publications, to the value-added product from the publisher of American Scientist, Sigma Xi, a fine, longstanding US scholarly society. Quite right, too. Those who can afford to pay for value-added products should do so. A fundamentalist's position, indeed.

For those who cannot afford to pay, David failed to mention that the article is provided in HTML free on the publisher's site, and has been since the day of publication, and that it is also available from my institution's repository, from my company's website and also from numerous other locations where people have linked to or posted it. Must have just slipped his memory. It's my pleasure to fill in that gap. If you want the article for free, go to any of those places, or just Google for it ("Alma Swan American Scientist"). Enjoy.