Open access: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 21:50, 17 February 2025

Revision as of 05:48, 18 February 2025

Line 10:

The main focus of the open access movement has been on "[[peer review]]ed research literature", and more specifically on [[academic journal]]s.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Swan |first=Alma |date=2012 |title=Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190414001646/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |archive-date=14 April 2019 |access-date=14 April 2019 |website=UNESCO}}</ref> This is because:

* such publications [[academic journal publishing reform|have been]] a subject of [[serials crisis]], unlike [[newspaper]]s, [[magazine]]s and [[fiction writing]]. The main difference between these two groups is in [[demand elasticity]]: whereas an English literature curriculum can substitute ''[[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]]'' with a free-___domain alternative, such as ''[[Gulliver's Travels|A Voyage to Lilliput]],'' an [[emergency room]] [[physician]] treating a patient for a life-threatening [[urushiol]] poisoning cannot substitute the most recent, but [[paywalled]] review article on this topic<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Diedrich V, Zweerink K |title=Elder B. Plant Dermatitis |journal=Emerg Med Clin North Am. |date=2024 |volume=42 |issue=3 |page=613-638 |doi=10.1016/j.emc.2024.03.001 |pmid=38925778 |url=https://www.emed.theclinics.com/article/S0733-8627(24)00041-5/abstract}}</ref> with a 90 year-old copyright-expired article<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hill GA, Mattacotti V |title=The Toxic Principle of the Poison Ivy |journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society |date=1934 |volume=56 |issue=12 |pages=2736–2738 |doi=10.1021/ja01327a064 |bibcode=1934JAChS..56.2736H |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja01327a064}}</ref> that was published before the invention of [[prednisone]] in 1954.

* the authors of research papers are not paid in any way, so they do not suffer any monetary losses, when they switch from [[Serials crisis#Big deal|behind paywall]] to open access publishing, especially, if they use [[diamond open access]] media.

Line 117:

However, preprints, in fact, protect against scooping.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b">{{Cite journal |last1=Sarabipour |first1=Sarvenaz |last2=Debat |first2=Humberto J. |last3=Emmott |first3=Edward |last4=Burgess |first4=Steven J. |last5=Schwessinger |first5=Benjamin |last6=Hensel |first6=Zach |year=2019 |title=On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=e3000151 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 |pmc=6400415 |pmid=30789895 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Considering the differences between traditional peer-review based publishing models and deposition of an article on a preprint server, "scooping" is less likely for manuscripts first submitted as preprints. In a traditional publishing scenario, the time from manuscript submission to acceptance and to final publication can range from a few weeks to years, and go through several rounds of revision and resubmission before final publication.<ref name="Powell 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Powell |first=Kendall |year=2016 |title=Does It Take Too Long to Publish Research? |journal=Nature |volume=530 |issue=7589 |pages=148–151 |bibcode=2016Natur.530..148P |doi=10.1038/530148a |pmid=26863966 |doi-access=free |s2cid=1013588}}</ref> During this time, the same work will have been extensively discussed with external collaborators, presented at conferences, and been read by editors and reviewers in related areas of research. Yet, there is no official open record of that process (e.g., peer reviewers are normally anonymous, reports remain largely unpublished), and if an identical or very similar paper were to be published while the original was still under review, it would be impossible to establish provenance.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

Preprints provide a time-stamp at the time of publication, which helps to establish the "priority of discovery" for scientific claims.<ref>{{Cite journal |lastlast1=Vale |firstfirst1=Ronald D |last2=Hyman |first2=Anthony A |date=2016-06-16 |title=Priority of discovery in the life sciences |url=https://elifesciences.org/articles/16931 |journal=eLife |volume=5 |pages=e16931 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16931 |doi-access=free |issn=2050-084X |pmc=4911212 |pmid=27310529}}</ref> This means that a preprint can act as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results.<ref name="Crick 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Crick |first1=Tom |last2=Hall |first2=Benjamin A. |last3=Ishtiaq |first3=Samin |year=2017 |title=Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture |journal=Journal of Open Research Software |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=32 |doi=10.5334/jors.73 |doi-access=free|arxiv=1503.02388 }}</ref> The fact that the majority of preprints come with a form of permanent identifier, usually a [[digital object identifier]] (DOI), also makes them easy to cite and track. Thus, if one were to be "scooped" without adequate acknowledgement, this would be a case of academic misconduct and plagiarism, and could be pursued as such.

There is no evidence that "scooping" of research via preprints exists, not even in communities that have broadly adopted the use of the [[arXiv]] server for sharing preprints since 1991. If the unlikely case of scooping emerges as the growth of the preprint system continues, it can be dealt with as academic malpractice. [[ASAPbio]] includes a series of hypothetical scooping scenarios as part of its preprint FAQ, finding that the overall benefits of using preprints vastly outweigh any potential issues around scooping.<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=ASAPbio FAQ |url=http://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011402/https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}.</ref> Indeed, the benefits of preprints, especially for early-career researchers, seem to outweigh any perceived risk: rapid sharing of academic research, open access without author-facing charges, establishing priority of discoveries, receiving wider feedback in parallel with or before peer review, and facilitating wider collaborations.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b" />

Line 256:

=== Open irony ===

Open irony refers to the situation where a scholarly journal article advocates open access but the article itself is only accessible by paying a fee to the journal publisher to read the article.<ref>{{cite news |last1=Hull |first1=Duncan |title=The Open Access Irony Awards: Naming and shaming them |url=https://duncan.hull.name/2012/02/15/open-irony/ |website=O'Really? |date=15 February 2012}}</ref><ref>{{cite web |last1=Duncan |first1=Green |title=Whatever happened to the Academic Spring? (Or the irony of hiding papers on transparency and accountability behind a paywall) |url=https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |website=From Poverty to Power |date=7 August 2013 |access-date=30 October 2020 |archive-date=20 October 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201020235834/https://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/whatever-happened-to-the-academic-spring-or-the-irony-of-being-prevented-from-reading-papers-on-transparency-and-accountability/ |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa">{{cite journal |last1=Marwick |first1=Ben |title=Open Access to Publications to Expand Participation in Archaeology |journal=Norwegian Archaeological Review |date=29 October 2020 |volume=53 |issue=2 |pages=163–169 |doi=10.1080/00293652.2020.1837233|s2cid=228961066 |url=http://osf.io/v9kfy/ }}</ref> This has been noted in many fields, with more than 20 examples appearing since around 2010, including in widely-read journals such as ''[[The Lancet]]'', ''[[Science (journal)|Science]]'' and ''[[Nature (journal)|Nature]]''. In 2012 Duncan Hull proposed the Open Access Irony award to publicly humiliate journals that publish these kinds of papers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schultz |first1=Teresa Auch |title=Practicing What You Preach: Evaluating Access of Open Access Research |journal=The Journal of Electronic Publishing |date=2 March 2018 |volume=21 |issue=1 |doi=10.3998/3336451.0021.103|doi-access=free |hdl=2027/spo.3336451.0021.103 |hdl-access=free }}</ref> Examples of these have been shared and discussed on social media using the [[hashtag]] #openirony. Typically, these discussions are humorous exposures of articles/editorials that are pro-open access, but locked behind paywalls. The main concern that motivates these discussions is that restricted access to public scientific knowledge is slowing scientific progress.<ref name="Open Access to Publications to Expa"/> The practice has been justified as important for raising awareness of open access.<ref>{{cite webjournal |last1=Eve |first1=Martin Paul |title=How ironic are the open access irony awards? |url=https://eve.gd/2013/10/21/how-ironic-are-the-open-access-irony-awards/ |website=Martin Paul Eve |language=en |date=21 October 2013|doi=10.59348/zg970-89g70 }}</ref>

== Infrastructure ==