tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post113459168001125979..comments2024-03-17T08:30:21.129+00:00Comments on Open and Shut?: Not written in the starsRichard Poynderhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1135071093066632762005-12-20T09:31:00.000+00:002005-12-20T09:31:00.000+00:00Dear Martin,Thanks for this comment. I agree with ...Dear Martin,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for this comment. I agree with your analysis, although we should perhaps add that by self-archiving papers that they have published in prestigious journals, researchers can enjoy the benefits of continuing to use traditional subscription-based journals while also obtaining the higher impact advantage of making those papers freely available on the Web. <BR/><BR/>You are right to point to the different issues facing learned societies and commercial publishers. I suspect that the greatest danger confronting learned societies today is that they could alienate their members to the point where their whole <I>raison d’être</I> becomes moot.<BR/><BR/>I also agree that it is researchers themselves who are best placed to facilitate the transition to OA. However, it is because too few of them have shown themselves willing to embrace the advantages offered by OA that so much energy is being expended on trying to persuade research funders to mandate them to do so. A mandate is now widely viewed as the quickest and most effective route to OA. But the fear must be that since funders are showing themselves to be so reluctant to introduce effective mandates we may need to wait until individual researchers make the decision for themselves.Richard Poynderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05433823131339077354noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7961882.post-1135000833207041372005-12-19T14:00:00.000+00:002005-12-19T14:00:00.000+00:00This is one of the best articles I have read about...This is one of the best articles I have read about open access (OA). Both open access journals and open access archiving is clearly a threat to established journals, many of whom are making excessive profits by selling access to research that was paid for by tax payers. <BR/><BR/>What will ultimately decide the issue in favor of OA is neither publishers, societies nor governments but scientists. The ultimate goal of a scientist is (i) to have his/her research read and cited by many others and (ii) publish in prestigious journals. These two are related in that more prestigious journals are more widely read and cited and more widely read and cited journals are more prestigious.<BR/><BR/>At this stage, OA journals are mainly competing with mid level traditional journals with a smaller subscription base, and they are doing so very successfully. When a suitable OA journal exists, there is no reason to send a paper to a traditional journal that only people at universities with large library budgets can read. Given equal prestige, it is in the interest of scientists to publish in open access journals since more people can then access and read the paper. That will in turn increase the citation rate and the prestige of OA journals compared to equivalent traditional journals. Now, prestige has to be gradually built up over many years, and OA journals have already started that climb. Most of the prestigious ones are still the old traditional journals, but there will be a gradual shift towards open access journals. <BR/><BR/>The hard question that the scientific societies need ask themselves is whether they want to cling onto their subscription base revenue stream as long as they can seeing OA journals bypass their journals in prestige or whether they should switch their journals to OA in order to maintain them as the top quality journals in their respective fields. For commercial publishers it is much easier to decide. They need to milk their cow as long as they can, and then it will be over.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com