[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year
- To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu, sparc-OAForum@arl.org, AMERICAN-SCIENTIST-OPEN-ACCESS-FORUM@LISTSERVER.SIGMAXI.ORG
- Subject: Re: Open access to research worth �1.5bn a year
- From: heatherm@eln.bc.ca
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 19:41:04 EDT
- Reply-to: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
- Sender: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
** with apologies for cross-posting ** Re: Stevan Harnad's Maximizing the Return on the U.K.'s Research Investment http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/28-guid.html Stevan's research is a novel approach for many of us, and may well be a bit hard to understand at first. Here is another way of looking at what I see Stevan as saying through this research: When an article is openly accessible, there are an average of 50% to 250% more citations to that article. In many cases, these will be citations by researchers who would otherwise not have had access to the research. Examples of such researchers could include faculty at smaller institutions in the U.K., researchers in developing countries, or researchers doing field work in remote areas, such as the Canadian arctic. The way science grows is that one researcher builds on the work of another. Sharing openly is like multiplying our research team - there are more people working on the problems and issues of interest to us. If they are from another country, this works like an ad hoc matching funds program. The U.K. kicks in the equivalent of $100K Cdn for research; the Canadian researcher obtains funds to continue the next phase of the study, returning $100K of value back to the U.K. Here is a different way of looking at the incredible economic benefits of open access, which I think we can understand without even figuring out the numbers. Consider the human genome project, in which countries worked together, sharing information openly, to map the human genome. This was accomplished in record time. If this project had not been carried out in an open manner, what would it have cost, and how long would it have taken? Is it even possible to imagine that following a traditional publish-and-subscribe approach to sharing of results would not have greatly slowed down the process, and cost a very great deal more? Stevan has gotten us off to a great start in looking at the economic benefits of open access. We haven't begun to explore the added benefits for the non-research sectors of society: the corporate sector, education, and so forth. hope this helps, Heather Morrison
- Prev by Date: Re: Google's Card Catalog Should Be Left Open
- Next by Date: Re: Open access to research worth 1.5bn a year
- Previous by thread: Registration, International Bielefeld Conference
- Next by thread: Call for Nominations: ACRL Academic/Research Librarian of the Year Award
- Index(es):