Re: The Value of OA

[Peter Banks <pbanks@bankspub.com>]

John,

I am not sure of the significance of the Rowlands/Nicholas CIBER
study. Yes, a large number of respondents agreed with the
statement "High journal prices make it difficult to access the
literature," just as a large number of Americans would probably
agree that "High gas prices make it difficult to travel." But
agreement with a statement, with no trade-off listed, doesn't
mean very much alone. Oddly, for researchers there was little
correlation (indeed, almost an inverse correlation) with the
statement "I publish in affordable journals," just as there
likely would not be for Americans with the statement "I take
public transportation."

In any case, though, the question I am asking is not whether
problems with access ever exist. Certainly they do. The question
is, were those barriers to be removed, would we see a sudden
surge of research, an improvement in clinical practice, or a
rising tide of patient and public understanding? If not, are
there other ways the Internet could be used to deliver
information that would produce more powerful outcomes?

My sense is that the benefits of OA (often described as "vast" or
"overwhelming") have been wildly exaggerated and the costs
trivialized. You seem to agree that is time for a far more
rigorous analysis, and I thank you for tackling it.

In part, I look at this from a personal viewpoint as a person
with a serious disease. In the US, much of the movement for open
access on Capitol Hill (see the background on FRPAA, for example)
has been couched in terms of benefits to patients--that is,
patients with cancer or diabetes will suddenly be able to access
and understand new treatments. This is largely nonsense--and has
enabled legislators like Sen. Cornyn to pretend that they are
doing something meaningful for patients when the truly meaningful
thing to do would be to take money from war and apply it to
health, rather than grossly underfunding medical research.

Extensive information on evidence-based treatments already exists
through NIH, American Cancer Society, and other reputable
sources. There are already databases of clinical trials for those
who wish to opt for experimental treatments. Though there are
certainly instances of individual patients reading clinical
trials and making wiser treatment decisions, anecdotes or the
slim hope that one will find the next Lorenzo's Oil should not be
the basis of public policy. I wonder how much further we would be
if all the energy and money that has gone into the open access
debate had instead been applied to actual cancer research.

Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
Publications Consulting and Services
Fairfax, VA 22030
pbanks@bankspub.com
www.bankspub.com
www.associationpublisher.com/blog/

On 4/3/07 5:43 PM, "John Houghton" <John.Houghton@vu.edu.au> wrote:

> Peter, et al. Publishers have an understandable interest in the
> existence or otherwise of access difficulties. Obviously, the
> marginal benefit of OA depends , in part, on the size of the
> margin. Perhaps we should begin with some evidence.
>
> Three references spring to mind:
>
> 1. In a survey of more than 5,500 senior researchers, Rowlands
> and Nicholas (2005, p23) found that almost 74% thought that
> 'high prices made it difficult to access the journal
> literature.' Rowlands, I. and Nicholas, D. (2005) /New Journal
> Publishing Models: An international survey of senior
> researchers,/ CIBER report for the Publishers Association and
> the International Association of STM Publishers, p23. Available
> http://www.slais.ucl.ac.uk/papers/dni-20050925.pdf.
>
> 2. Sparks (2005, pp26-28) appeared to report that almost half of
> the 750 researchers she surveyed reported having problems gaining
> access to the resources they needed for their research, with more
> than half in medical and biological sciences (52.5%) and arts and
> humanities (53.4%) reporting difficulties. The major reported
> problems were access to journal articles, books and conference
> proceedings. Of those reporting difficulties, between 80% and 90%
> of researchers in medical and biological sciences, physical
> sciences and social sciences said that their 'library did not
> take the journals they needed to access for their work,' as did
> 70% to 80% of those in languages, arts and humanities. Sparks, S.
> (2005) /JISC Disciplinary Differences Report,/ Rightscom, London.
> Available at:
> http://www.jisc.ac.uk/uploaded_documents/Disciplinary%20Differences%20and%20Needs.doc
>
> 3. Reporting on an extensive review of the evidence EPS et al.
> (2006, p11) noted that "All researchers appear to have similar
> levels of access to the journal materials they need. The issue of
> ease of access to journals shows little meaningful variation by
> discipline around 50% of all researchers, regardless of
> discipline, experience problems." EPS (2006) /UK scholarly
> journals: 2006 baseline report: An evidence-based analysis of
> data concerning scholarly journal publishing/, RIN, RCUK and DTI,
> p11. Available http://www.rin.ac.uk/data-scholarly-journals.
>
> By way of triangulation, a 50% to 75% reported access difficulty
> correlates pretty well with the additional level of citation of
> OA articles reported by many studies (e.g. the open citation
> project, at http://opcit.eprints.org/). And, of course, some
> proportion of the benefits of OA may relate to non-university
> based researchers (e.g. in smaller firms in biotechnology,
> electronics, engineering, management consulting, etc.).
>
> In regard to costs and benefits, there are a number of people
> looking into the issue of the relative costs and benefits of toll
> versus open access. Our own work in Australia is one example.
> Houghton, J.W. Steele, C. & Sheehan, P.J. (2006) /Research
> Communication Costs in Australia, Emerging Opportunities and
> Benefits/, Department of Education, Science and Training,
> Canberra. Available http://dspace.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/44485.
> See also the Economic and Social Impacts of OA agenda at
> <http://www.cfses.com/projects/Easi-OA.htm>
>
> Like you, I think it is an area where we really do need to move
> from statements to evidence.
>
> John Houghton
> Centre for Strategic Economic Studies (CSES), Victoria University
> john.houghton@vu.edu.au
> Web: www.cfses.com