More on open access

I am quite persuaded by Michael Eisen’s recent comments on open access:

…it is simply unacceptable for any scientist who decries Elsevier’s actions and believes that the subscription based model is no longer serving science to send a single additional paper to journals that do not provide full OA [open access] to every paper they publish.

But how can I do that if Genetics isn’t fully open? Genetics charges an extra $1200 to make an article open access. Would it really cost $1200 per article to make the journal fully open?

Another follow-up to my comments yesterday: I had suggested that copyright law might be changed to make papers coming from federal research grants fully open. I later found an interesting paper in the Journal of Legal Analysis, Should copyright of academic works be abolished? The author concludes:

…if publication fees would be largely defrayed by universities and grantors, as I suggest would be to their advantage, then the elimination of copyright of academic works would likely be socially desirable: it would not compromise academic publication activity and would yield the social benefits of a copyright-free regime.

I haven’t read the whole paper, and there’s a bit of quantitative analysis that I don’t think I’ll like, but it does provide a thorough argument for what I see as the real need: to change copyright law. Still, I’m not sure that monographs should be treated the same as journal articles.

Another interesting point: The Journal of Legal Analysis is open access (articles are published under the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial licence), and it seems to be funded in part through the endowment model I’d mentioned:

The journal is underwritten by a generous grant from the Considine Family Foundation, and continues to enjoy the strong support of the Harvard Law School and the John M. Olin Center for Law, Economics, and Business.


Tags: , ,