Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Search in comments
Search in excerpt
Search in posts
Search in pages
Search in groups
Search in users
Search in forums
Filter by Categories
Academic Practice
Academic Writing Month
Academic Writing Month
Blogging and Social Media
Book Editing
Book Literature Review
Book Marketing and Impact
Book Planning
Book Proposals
Book Publishing
Book Writing
Citations and Referencing
Conference Paper Abstracts
Conference Paper Editing
Conference Paper Literature Review
Conference Paper Marketing and Impact
Conference Paper Planning
Conference Paper Presenting
Conference Paper Writing
Conference Papers
Digital Publishing
Experimental Digital Publishing
Grant Abstracts
Grant Completion Reporting
Grant Impact Statement
Grant Literature Review
Grant Methods Section
Grant Writing
Journal Article Abstracts
Journal Article Editing
Journal Article Literature Review
Journal Article Marketing and Impact
Journal Article Peer Review
Journal Article Planning
Journal Article Writing
Journal Articles
Open Access
Reading and Note-Taking
Reseach Project Planning
Martin Paul Eve on Open Access Week

This post is by Martin Paul Eve,  a researcher at the University of Sussex working on the novels of Thomas Pynchon. Until recently he was chief editor of the postgraduate journal Excursions and he has just launched a gold-standard, libre OA journal, Orbit: Writing Around Pynchon. He is speaking as the opening plenary at the UK Scholarly Group next year on auto-subversive practices in academic publishing and has a forthcoming book chapter on Open Access in the edited collection, Zombies in the Academy.

For several years now, academic libraries worldwide have played host to Open Access week, an international celebration of the revolution in academic publishing. For the same number of years, a question has circulated among participants at these events: “is 20XX the year of the tipping point?” It is that question, after a brief excursion into the history of Open Access, that I wish to address.

Since its inception around 2000 (yes, that’s up for debate), Open Access has signalled an end to the days of resource inaccessibility and illuminated the end of the publishing stranglehold upon library budgets. Deviating from the traditional economic publishing structure, Open Access means that academic material is made free at the point of delivery; free as in beer and often free as in speech. Granting permission to read free of charge and often free of copyright restriction, taxpayer-funded research is now available to the masses. It comes in two “roads”: green and gold. Green Open Access is achieved when academics deposit their work in an Institutional Repository (IR) after publishing it independently in a peer-reviewed journal. Gold Open Access, conversely, is open from the starting line; peer-reviewed journals which are free to access. Such a move does, after all, make sense. Academics devote their time to research, peer review and proofreading with little or no financial compensation from the publishers who then charge their own institutions to buy back the material. If we do the work anyway, why not take on the extra publishing aspects?

This is not to say that publishers add no value. Indeed, they typeset, copyedit and, in the case of hard-copy material, print the items. However, it is clear that subscription costs are rising out of all proportion to inflation and certainly to academic library budgets. As independent entities under a closed model, academic publishers are anachronisms that we can no longer afford.

Such a reconfiguration does have political ramifications for the structure of the university. Questions such as the evolved nature of the library have yet to be satisfactorily answered, along with the problematic centralisation of university funding once the library no longer has the responsibility for acquisition. Finally, inadequate provision has been made to support early-career researchers in the transition period. The reason for this is that many publishers are attempting to resurrect their business model through an “author-pays” system. In my experience of running two OA journals, I believe this to be unnecessary and that publishers overstate the role they play. Assuming this does go forward, though, from where are early-career researchers expected to find the requisite funds?

After this deviation into the history of Open Access, then, is 2011 the year of the tipping point? This year, Open Access has received an exponential degree of exposure. From George Monbiot in the Guardian to the continued efforts of Cameron Neylon, OA has finally made it into the academic general consciousness. Yet this coverage is not universal. The humanities remain, for the most part, entrenched in a closed culture; awareness of Institutional Repositories is minimal, OA journals have yet to achieve the necessary degree of prestige and confusion reigns over whether OA is peer-reviewed and what exactly author-pays means. It is unacceptable for their to remain such a gap between academic disciplines’ awareness of OA and, for the tipping point to be truly reached, this must be rectified through top-down research council mandates. There are signs of hope, but if Ladbrokes wanted to offer me a punt, I’d ask them to come back in 3-5 years.


    Harnad, S. (1998/2000/2004) The invisible hand of peer review. Nature [online] (5 Nov. 1998), Exploit Interactive 5 (2000): and in Shatz, B. (2004) (ed.) Peer Review: A Critical Inquiry. Rowland & Littlefield. Pp. 235-242. http://helix.nature.com/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html
    ABSTRACT: The refereed journal literature needs to be freed from both paper and its costs, but not from peer review, whose “invisible hand” is what maintains its quality. The residual cost of online-only peer review is low enough to be recovered from author-institution-end page charges, covered from institutional subscription savings, thereby vouchsafing a toll-free refereed research literature for everyone, everywhere, forever.

    Harnad, S. (2011) Gold Open Access Publishing Must Not Be Allowed to Retard the Progress of Green Open Access Self-Archiving. Logos 21(3-4): 86-93 /
    ABSTRACT: Universal Open Access (OA) is fully within the reach of the global research community: Research institutions and funders need merely mandate (green) OA self-archiving of the final, refereed drafts of all journal articles immediately upon acceptance for publication. The money to pay for gold OA publishing will only become available if universal green OA eventually makes subscriptions unsustainable. Paying for gold OA pre-emptively today, without first having mandated green OA not only squanders scarce money, but it delays the attainment of universal OA.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

What is 9 + 8 ?
Please leave these two fields as-is:
IMPORTANT! To be able to proceed, you need to solve the following simple math (so we know that you are a human) :-)