Research from behind the wall?
Jinfo Blog

By Joanna Ptolomey

Abstract

The debate about open access publishing continues with strong representation from the Gates Foundation and the Wellcome Trust for the idea that if research is publicly funded it should be open to all. However, both in the UK and the US there seems to be some hesitation which could mean that the only winners will be the big publishers.

Item

A common feature of my work is finding and accessing research findings for clients. Prising scientific research from behind a publisher’s paywall can be a particularly frustrating experience.

This morning it was the journal CHEST. However on any given day I have to interrogate the powers that be, working out what password for what publisher and, by the way, where have all the electronic full text archives gone? These are questions that dominate my day.

The longer I do my job the more I am concerned that this closed and limiting model of research publication must go. It stops innovation at so many levels – sharing is good.

On the LiveWire it is a constant source of feed for us editors, with Tim Buckley Owen pondering the poker game that is pricing models, and I can add that the National Health Service (NHS) is sitting at that table too. The Wellcome Trust, which according to the Guardian spends £600 million on scientific research a year and is the largest non-governmental funder of medical research after the Gates Foundation, has recently announced that scientific results will be available freely within six months of first publication.

And so it should. If research is publicly or charity funded then it should be available to anyone – research communities and the public.

Research Councils UK is also considering its access policies but generally there does seem to be quite a bit of foot shuffling going on. In the United States they already have taken the lead with the National Institute of Health (NIH) public access policy. In a nutshell, if your tax dollars paid for that research then it is your right as a citizen to access it. Patient, clinician, teacher, student and person on the street – they all have access.

However even the NIH open access policy is coming under threat from a Bill introduced in the House of Representatives in January this year that would forbid NIH to provide copies of papers from research they funded to be lodged into public domain. I reported on this back in February but there's still no further news from the US. If this comes to fruition then it is a big win for the big publishers, thinks the New York Times, and a return to the old business model.

But are times really a-changing?

There does seem to be a constant stroppiness recently from the researcher community and, as Tim and I reported, the Elsevier boycott may have faded from the social media glare presently but it could just have fanned the embers of inertia into an academic spring of openness.

Stephen Curry, writing in the LSE blog, considers the Elsevier retreat as only a short term tactical strategy. As a researcher he feels the tide has now changed and things cannot go back.

He reports on his own interesting experiences in seeking open access publication with a traditional publisher. He also sets out the grass roots problems of researchers and information professionals looking to publish and be found easily.

Academic spring – buds and some new growth I think. Perhaps if that patient client of mine can access that research about their condition, they could even contribute something to the evidence base.

« Blog