A recent opinion piece in The Guardian argues that “There can be no such thing as free access to academic research. Academic research is not something to which free access is possible. Academic research is a process – a process which universities teach (at a fee).”
I’m not going to get into any lengthy or thorough discussion of the subject, but would rather like to just comment back at Prof. Osborne’s opening statement in this article, that “the fundamental argument for providing open access to academic research is that research that is funded by the tax-payer should be available to the tax-payer.” I disagree entirely. Yes, this reason is among those most frequently recited and debated, but to my mind, it is hardly the most fundamental, or appropriate, argument for open access. Rather, I believe in open access because:
(a) as researchers, students, and scholars, the work we do is not-for-profit, and therefore others, such as online journal database providers, should not be making profit off of it.
Rather, the journal database providers are, or should be, members of that same academic community, should see themselves in that way, and should dial down their asking prices accordingly.
(b) as researchers, students, and scholars, we are members of a community that functions through the sharing of knowledge. Everything we do is based on having access to others’ findings or interpretations, and access to as complete as possible the body of scholarship on a given subject. Consider the number of articles scarcely ever read, and never cited, because they are not easily accessible through the normal routes – i.e. whether freely, or through one of the standard subscription services such as JSTOR or Project Muse – there is a bias here, a bias towards scholarship that is based not on the entirety of the scholarship out there, but based instead on only the scholarship that is easily accessible through standard avenues. And that’s a problem.
(c) on a somewhat similar note, the very nature of scholarship itself, the intention of scholarship, is to inform the world, whether that be the public / the masses, or fellow researchers, and to add to a growing body of knowledge. When that body of knowledge is hidden behind paywalls, when obstacles are put in place to prevent either scholars or “regular” members of the public from having access to that information, the information might as well not be a part of that body of knowledge to begin with.
(d) finally, returning to the idea of academia as a community based on the sharing of knowledge, open access is the broad-scale equivalent, or extrapolation, of the small-scale phenomenon of my walking down the hallway, knocking on the door to a friend’s office, and handing him a book (or sending her an email with a PDF attachment of a journal article) that I think would be of interest, relevance, or importance to their research. This is the essence of a scholarly community, the essence of scholarly collaboration; when one does it on a small scale, there’s no subscription service, access fees, or other middleman involved, so why should there be on a large scale?
I don’t know if these really constitute four separate reasons, or four aspects of a single, not-so-well-worded, idea. But, either way, I think, I hope, that most academics are thinking along similar lines to myself, and not along the lines of this oft-repeated, tax-payer-centered argument.