Open access saves $1B
| 5 August, 2010 | Adie Chan |
8
|
|
A new analysis suggests that making papers open access would pump $1 billion into the U.S. economy over the next few decades.
That’s about five times the amount it costs to archive the papers, according to ScienceInsider.
The economic analysis, about the effects of a pending National Institutes of Health policy that would make all papers from federally funded research free after a delay, comes from John Houghton at Victoria University in Melbourne, Australia, and his colleagues. He has also suggested open access could save nearly half a billion euros per year in the UK, as well. You can read more about the newest model here.
Publishers, of course, have decried the proposal. Do you think such a potentially dramatic cost savings is enough to convince skeptics?
|
|
previous post
No, because most of the skeptics are not the people saving money. It is not in publishers own interest to decrease their potential profits.
(Note — my web site above is being updated)
Being a “old codger” prof, even I am enthusiastic about open access, and electronic archival is far the best deal to market as Amazon.com does for an e-reader. Indeed, the e-book or e-journal are more easily archived in an e-library than one with tons of “hard copies”. Our Science Library has moved this way for journals. Illustrations can be animated or streaming video. Should a reader use an e-copy for their tablet PC or Mac they would avoid huge space allocation book cases, and highly portable libraries (not books or issues of a journal). I’ve been teaching classes with e-books, and the technology is mature, especially for technological audiences. However, a caveat is hard copies should be part of an archival system, since e-copies may change in ways we aren’t fully confident. The Dead Sea Scrolls have lasted much longer than “books” and the e-books may be much more unprotected by our technology assumed to be archival. I’m not the expert, but am a person who makes few assumptions when the truth may expose a vulnerability.
No, the skeptics being the science publishers (a business that rivals pharmaceutical industry in ROI) and the politicians they lobby, no arguments will convince these “skeptics”. There is something rotten in the kingdom of Denmark! (Shakespeare, Hamlet)
Currently, out-of-work scientists and those who have been retired don’t have proper access to the non-open-access literature. The same applies to the availability of professional search engines (except for Medline).
I think this is a serious waste of talent, and in times of restricted funding it can destroy the careers of people who deserve better support for their knowledge.
It could be argued that old and “failed” scientists still have a contribution to make in teaching and other professions, but this is not a good reason for cutting them off from the literature. An obvious deficiency in this respect is that specialist review articles are rarely accessible unless you have a subscription via a research institution.
To paraphrase Ben Franklin, a penny saved is a penny not earned by someone else, who may not readily concede the virtues of frugality.