I have generally avoided discussion in this listserv but I think you have introduced a significant distortion to the discussion by quoting the figure of 24,000 scientific journals which allegedly produce 2,500,000 articles per year. I presume someone has estimated the average of 100 articles per year. A more realistic figure for journals would be ten to fifteen thousand scientific journals putting aside the crucial question of definition.
If open access is to become viable it seems to me the key factor is the group of 500 to 1000 highest impact journals which account for a substantial portion of the significant articles which are published and most cited. Unless these journals make it possible for authors to self-archive or to be freely accessible you cannot achieve open access nirvana. One might argue that once e.g. 50% or more of these most important journals are in the fold the breakthrough threshold has been reached. Since it has been demonstrated that on line access improves both readership and citation impact we can certainly expect that the vast majority of the low impact journals would be well advised to make their journals open access. Whether this increases their impact remains to be seen, but increased readership or attention seems inevitable. __________________________________________________ Eugene Garfield, PhD. email: garfi...@codex.cis.upenn.edu home page: www.eugenegarfield.org Tel: 215-243-2205 Fax 215-387-1266 President, The Scientist LLC. www.the-scientist.com 3535 Market St., Phila. PA 19104-3389 Chairman Emeritus, ISI www.isinet.com 3501 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104-3302 Past President, American Society for Information Science and Technology (ASIS&T) www.asis.org -----Original Message----- From: Stevan Harnad [mailto:har...@ecs.soton.ac.uk] Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 1:41 PM To: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@listserver.sigmaxi.org Subject: Re: A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System" > I am a science writer from [deleted]. I am sending you four questions > I have for an article that I am writing about the open access debate in > [deleted]. > > 1 There are approximately 20,000 scientific journals. Currently only a > fraction operates on an open access model. Do you expect the number of > open journals to rise significantly in the next, say, 10 years? The number of journals in question is peer-reviewed research journals (not necessarily only scientific ones) and the current updated estimate of how many of them there in all is 24,000, publishing about 2,500,000 articles annually: http://www.ulrichsweb.com/ulrichsweb/analysis/ About 1000 (under 5%) of the 24,000 journals are Open Access (OA) journals. The rest are Toll Access (TA). http://www.doaj.org/ I expect the number of OA journals to rise in the next 10 years, and I hope it will rise significantly, but I do not believe it will rise anywhere near significantly enough to bring us near 100% on its own. But it is not necessary for all or even most of the remaining 23,000 TA journals to convert to OA for there to be 100% open access to all 2,500,000 articles published annually: Creating, converting and publishing in OA journals is the "golden" road to OA. The "green" road to OA is for those authors who do not have a suitable OA journal in which to publish their article: they can instead publish it in a suitable TA journal but also provide OA to it by self-archiving it in their own institution's OA Eprint Archives: http://software.eprints.org/archives.php http://oaister.umdl.umich.edu/o/oaister/ http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ Via this dual open-access provision strategy all peer-reviewed journal articles can be made OA very soon. > 2 Some open journals also employ open peer review. What do you think > about it? Are both kinds of openness linked as some proponents argue? They are not linked at all -- and when they are linked in some people's minds, it serves as a deterrent to OA provision. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/#7.Pee The goal of the OA movement is to free peer-reviewed research from access-tolls, so as to maximise its usage and impact. The goal is not to free peer-reviewed research from peer-review! Peer-review reform is a completely independent issue, and reform proposals need to be tested and shown to work before being considered for adoption. None have been. They have simply been advocated a priori. That is why associating open-access and "open review" proposals has worked to the detriment of open access. > 3 Is the open access model only a way back to the roots of science as > public knowledge? Or an essential future direction towards a new chance > for interdisciplinarity as cross-disciplinary access to papers is > getting much easier? If it had not been for the true and sizeable costs of Gutenberg-era publication and dissemination, peer-revewed research would never have been sold for payment, as most of the rest of the literature is. The authors of research articles do not write for royalties or fees but for research impact. Toll-barriers are barriers to usage and impact. In the Gutenberg era they were unavoidable, because they were the only way to recover the true costs of paper publication. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Tp/resolution.htm#1 In the PostGutenberg, online era, this is no longer true. Hence the advent of OA. Yes, much research is publicly funded. So funding agencies can be a help in hastening the OA era. http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving_files/Slide0022.gif And yes, OA will promote interdiscipliarity too. But OA's primary rationale is that researchers do and report research so that it can be used, not so that it can be sold; and OA at last allows them to maximise its usage by either replacing (gold) or supplementing (green) TA with OA. > 4 One could also argue that the whole journal system as it is supports > Paul Feyerabend's criticism of the narrowmindedness of the scientific > community as expressed for instance in "Against Method" - that new > methods are hampered by it rather than supported. What do you think > about that? I think Feyerabend's is fine armchair speculation but has very little to do with reality. Journals are simply peer-review service providers. Peers are simply qualified experts in the specialty area of a submitted paper. (Peers review for free, just as authors give aeay their papers for free.) If peer review were abandoned or replaced by anarchic opinion polls, the 2,500,000 annual articles in the 24,000 journals whose usage and impact we were trying to free from access-tolls would quickly devolve to the level of the free-for-all chatter on Usenet (the global graffiti board for trivial pursuit) -- until peer review was simply re-invented. http://www.google.com/grphp?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=&tab=wg This is because all of us -- except when we are in armchair Feyerabendian mode -- if we have a sick relative, would rather they were treated by information vetted by qualified experts than by a gallup poll. The Invisible Hand of Peer Review. http://www.nature.com/nature/webmatters/invisible/invisible.html Peer Review Reform Hypothesis-Testing http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/0479.html A Note of Caution About "Reforming the System" http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/1169.html Self-Selected Vetting vs. Peer Review: Supplement or Substitute? http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/2340.html Stevan Harnad NOTE: A complete archive of the ongoing discussion of providing open access to the peer-reviewed research literature online (1998-2004) is available at the American Scientist Open Access Forum: To join the Forum: http://amsci-forum.amsci.org/archives/American-Scientist-Open-Access-Forum.h tml Post discussion to: american-scientist-open-access-fo...@amsci.org Hypermail Archive: http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/index.html Unified Dual Open-Access-Provision Policy: BOAI-2 ("gold"): Publish your article in a suitable open-access journal whenever one exists. http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/boaifaq.htm#journals BOAI-1 ("green"): Otherwise, publish your article in a suitable toll-access journal and also self-archive it. http://www.eprints.org/self-faq/ http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml http://www.eprints.org/signup/sign.php