In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough
After decades of debate on the feasibility of open access (OA) to scientific publications, we may be nearing a tipping point. A number of recent developments, such as Plan S, suggest that OA upon publication could become the default in the sciences within the next several years. Despite uncertainty...
| Main Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Other Authors: | |
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
2021
|
| Online Access: | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128966 |
| _version_ | 1811097052941123584 |
|---|---|
| author | Aspesi, Claudio Brand, Amy E |
| author2 | M.I.T. Press |
| author_facet | M.I.T. Press Aspesi, Claudio Brand, Amy E |
| author_sort | Aspesi, Claudio |
| collection | MIT |
| description | After decades of debate on the feasibility of open access (OA) to scientific publications, we may be nearing a tipping point. A number of recent developments, such as Plan S, suggest that OA upon publication could become the default in the sciences within the next several years. Despite uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of OA models, many publishers who had been reluctant to abandon the subscription business model are showing openness to OA (1). Although more OA can mean more immediate, global access to scholarship, there remains a need for practical, sustainable models, for careful analysis of the consequences of business model choices, and for “caution in responding to passionate calls for a ‘default to open’” (2). Of particular concern for the academic community, as subscription revenues decline in the transition to OA and some publishers prioritize other sources of revenue, is the growing ownership of data analytics, hosting, and portal services by large scholarly publishers. This may enhance publishers' ability to lock in institutional customers through combined offerings that condition open access to journals upon purchase of other services. Even if such “bundled” arrangements have a near-term benefit of increasing openly licensed scholarship, they may run counter to long-term interests of the academic community by reducing competition and the diversity of service offerings. The healthy functioning of the academic community, including fair terms and conditions from commercial partners, requires that the global marketplace for data analytics and knowledge infrastructure be kept open to real competition. |
| first_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:53:34Z |
| format | Article |
| id | mit-1721.1/128966 |
| institution | Massachusetts Institute of Technology |
| last_indexed | 2024-09-23T16:53:34Z |
| publishDate | 2021 |
| publisher | American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) |
| record_format | dspace |
| spelling | mit-1721.1/1289662022-10-03T09:00:37Z In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough Aspesi, Claudio Brand, Amy E M.I.T. Press Brand, Amy E. After decades of debate on the feasibility of open access (OA) to scientific publications, we may be nearing a tipping point. A number of recent developments, such as Plan S, suggest that OA upon publication could become the default in the sciences within the next several years. Despite uncertainty about the long-term sustainability of OA models, many publishers who had been reluctant to abandon the subscription business model are showing openness to OA (1). Although more OA can mean more immediate, global access to scholarship, there remains a need for practical, sustainable models, for careful analysis of the consequences of business model choices, and for “caution in responding to passionate calls for a ‘default to open’” (2). Of particular concern for the academic community, as subscription revenues decline in the transition to OA and some publishers prioritize other sources of revenue, is the growing ownership of data analytics, hosting, and portal services by large scholarly publishers. This may enhance publishers' ability to lock in institutional customers through combined offerings that condition open access to journals upon purchase of other services. Even if such “bundled” arrangements have a near-term benefit of increasing openly licensed scholarship, they may run counter to long-term interests of the academic community by reducing competition and the diversity of service offerings. The healthy functioning of the academic community, including fair terms and conditions from commercial partners, requires that the global marketplace for data analytics and knowledge infrastructure be kept open to real competition. 2021-01-05T22:36:54Z 2021-01-05T22:36:54Z 2020-05 Article http://purl.org/eprint/type/JournalArticle 0036-8075 1095-9203 https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128966 Aspesi, Claudio and Amy Brand. "In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough." Science 368, 6491 (May 2020): 574-577 © 2020 American Association for the Advancement of Science http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aba3763 Science Article is made available in accordance with the publisher's policy and may be subject to US copyright law. Please refer to the publisher's site for terms of use. application/pdf American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Amy Brand |
| spellingShingle | Aspesi, Claudio Brand, Amy E In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title | In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title_full | In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title_fullStr | In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title_full_unstemmed | In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title_short | In pursuit of open science, open access is not enough |
| title_sort | in pursuit of open science open access is not enough |
| url | https://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/128966 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT aspesiclaudio inpursuitofopenscienceopenaccessisnotenough AT brandamye inpursuitofopenscienceopenaccessisnotenough |