I recently wrote a few pages about Open Access myself, for a take-home test in my Collection Development course. Since I was writing at about five in the morning, it’s hard to remember if what I said made any sense (I tend not to look back over my assignments once I’ve handed them in). I do remember that my tone was very much pro-OA, and that my title was “Open Access (or Close the Door)”. If I did make sense, then I hope that my paper resembled somewhat the one recently written by Alma Swan for American Scientist Online.
Swan argues against the current way we disseminate research:
“But no one would say, “Hey, why don’t we only let some researchers see this stuff and see how science gets on?” Yet that is precisely where we are today, in a system where gateways limit access to research results, and as a consequence only a small fraction of the world’s research libraries subscribe to some journals. The gentleman’s club survives, if only as metaphor.”
Swan goes on to cite multiple ways in which an open access publishing model would improve scientific research. I’m sure it makes a bit more sense than my paper did, but the sentiment is very much the same.
Open access, or close the door.
Read the article:
American Scientist Online – Open Access and the Progress of Science
