Duke University Medical Center Library Online - Open Access: Something to Consider

Pat Thibodeau, Associate Dean for Library Services

NIH Public Access Policy Revisited (April, 2006)	NIH Public Access Policy Now Mandatory (February, 2008)
New NIH Public Access Policy (June, 2005)	Open Access: New Developments (February, 2005)

Faculty and leaders at academic and research institutions are beginning to challenge the old publishing paradigms and are considering alternative methods for scholarly publication. One new model that is getting more support throughout the country is Open Access. This scholarly communication method serves the ultimate goal of researchers and faculty members - ensuring the immediate and widespread dissemination of, and access to, research findings and new information. While traditional society and commercial publishing have tried to achieve the same goal, some of their prices and licenses are restricting access. The Open Access initiative is beginning to raise some serious questions about the best way to control and disseminate the works of faculty, clinicians, and researchers who serve as authors and editors.

Should articles on federally-funded research results be turned over to for-profit publishers?
Why should an institution buy back its research results at high costs through library subscriptions?
Should authors give up their copyrights to commercial publishers (as most do) and lose all controlover their work?
Should authors and institutions take back their intellectual property rights?
Who should pay for the costs of journal publications? Libraries? Authors? Funding agencies?
Are there faster methods for making results available while ensuring quality?
Are there other publishing models that ensure quality through peer review and provide fiscal sustainability?

In addition to raising questions, some of the Open Access initiatives are presenting challenges to the old scholarly communication methods. The Public Library of Science (PLoS) journal, PLoS Biology, has raised the visibility of the Open Access initiative and presented a model where authors pay the costs of peer review and publishing, providing free access to anyone interested in the electronic journal. One issue for the Open Access movement has been whether the journals could attain the same level of quality and prestige as the more traditional and highly regarded titles. Impact factors, while not the perfect measure, do indicate how often other authors cite the contents of a journal. BioMed Central, which started an Open Access initiative many years ago, now has several journal titles that have impact factors. The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, and other organizations and agencies which fund research, are also stepping forward to help pay author fees for these new types of publications. PubMed Central is addressing the issue of how to provide access to back volumes and preserve that access for the future.

Is Open Access the solution to increasing journal costs and restrictive licenses? It is still too soon to tell what long-term effect these new approaches may have on the publishing industry. Many question the sustainability of these models, and others point out that major changes must be made in promotion and tenure systems for such models to be really successful.

Regardless of the long-term viability, these and other Open Access initiatives are highlighting important issues that impact the accessibility and availability of the latest knowledge for the clinical and research communities.