In January 2007 Five leading European research institutions launched a petition that called on the European Commission to establish Open Access which would require all government-funded research to be made available to the public shortly after publication. Despite scant media attention, word spread like wildfire through scientific and research communities and more than 20,000 signatures, including multiple Nobel Prize Laureates and 750 organizations. In response, the European Commission committed more than $100m (£51m) towards facilitating greater open access Read Full Article
From a social change perspective this is good. As reading increases and rights to access are enforced, society is enriched and autonomy is increased.
At present institutions access funds for research, Academics and Scientists submit materials for 'peer reviewed' publication. The journals sell this content back to subscribers and institutions at hefty prices. There is also serious concern for bias. Journals are known to present their view free of charge but yet charge upwards of thirty dollars for each access to rebuttals effectively subverting the scientific process. Many journals now sell ads which further subverts the objective process.
The journal argues peer reviewing is costly and they can not afford to create open access. It seems to me that paying for something that has already been paid for by the various universities and grants is like graft. Furthermore some journals are triple dipping. They get the research for free, have advertisers, and sell subscriptions.
In answer to the journals position that they are paying big money for peer reviewers...I asked around. It seems most peer reviewers do this as a part of a job or in some cases because of political demands. They are expected to lend their time and name to make publishers fat and if they don't do it they are excluded politically.
The old argument that research is complex and the scientifically uneducated majority will read to their own harm is as old as the religious dogmas refusing access of the Bible to common people. This kind of exclusionary power led to the crusades where people were unjustly executed in the name of God to further political agendas.
Let's not forget the search engines in all of this. They have no obligation to disclose search sources so are also potentially huge political players in the area of research and access.
It is important for society at large to see the original research. This way they can go to medical appointments fully prepared. I have personally accessed treatment not available to others because I laid out research to support my position. With access individuals can monitor the sources for funding and learn how statistics can be adjusted or ignored because of a journals bias....They are also less likely to fall prey to inaccurate media reports and agree to treatments that are not in their best interests. Knowledge is power and journals want to keep it ...well my view is Open Access can open dialogue and lead to expanded knowledge we are all working let them pay their fair share and hold up their end of the piano!
