Against Open Access???

Share on FacebookShare on Google+Email this to someoneTweet about this on Twitter

It seems that a coalition of non-Open Access journals, Partnership in Research Integrity in Science & Medicine, is out to take down journals like PLOS. I know people have to put bread on the table, but really there isn’t an open-ended guarantee that you can milk your business model forever. In any case, Blog Around the Clock has links to many comments around the web in regards to this issue.


One Comments

  1. Two points. 
    One. I do not understand how it’s remotely justifiable to block 
    taxpayers from access to research that they have more or less completely 
    financed. Elsevier and the like engage in what is at heart an 
    outrageous sort of theft.  
    Two. I’m puzzled by this emphasis on “peer review.” First of 
    all the phrase as normally used does not mean what the words say. 
    If we actually had peer review — as in open public comment and discussion 
    and criticism by other people in the field — that would be great. But 
    we don’t. We have anonymous, hidden review. This is a completely different 
    kettle of fish. Why do we want that? 
    I understand the motivations of the journals who are looking for 
    mechanisms to minimize their costs. But should the profitability of scientific 
    journals become the dominant purpose of the scientific community? 
    Imagine that some group of the scientists is intensely politicized 
    and approves or disapproves papers based on the author’s politics. 
    Imagine that to a significant degree professional standing is determined 
    by the number of “peer reviewed” papers to be published. 
    Run the math. 
    Even if the initial set of politically-determined reviewers is small and 
    even if there are competing political conspiracies, it doesn’t take that 
    many decades but for one view to become dominant and a field to become 
    transformed to where political conformity is now the hidden criteria 
    for success. 
    Even if contrary to human nature and contrary to what can be seen by 
    simply opening one eyes, politics plays no role at all, why do we want 
    a situation where papers are approved or disapproved by anonymous people 
    whose reasoning is not disclosed?