In my view, the panel and ensuing discussion highlighted the very many complications involved in academic publishing, both traditional and open access, and the need for the academic community to have an honest and creative discussion concerning ethical ways to move forward. As George Brooke in his introduction noted, all publishing involves questions of quality control, ownership, and cost, as well as long-term accessibility. No solution can avoid these issues.In my view, the panel and ensuing discussion highlighted the very many complications involved in academic publishing, both traditional and open access, and the need for the academic community to have an honest and creative discussion concerning ethical ways to move forward. As George Brooke in his introduction noted, all publishing involves questions of quality control, ownership, and cost, as well as long-term accessibility. No solution can avoid these issues.
In its research plan, ANEE has committed to Open Access, so it is a pressing concern for our researchers. However, as Corinne Bonnet commented, the EU’s so-called Plan S will commit all grant-funded researchers in Europe to publishing open access, and other countries will follow suit. A number of universities, the University of Helsinki included, already require it. This means the issue is one of pressing importance; it also means the problems with the current system of Open Access should not be overlooked, either. Both John Kutsko and I pointed out some ethical issues behind so-called Gold and Hybrid access systems. Not only do these systems threaten to create a class system in publishing between well- and underfunded scholars, funders also control what gets to be published. Further, such systems allow for-profit companies to further gouge scholars and universities by charging exorbitant fees at multiple stages of the publishing process. A model where scholars must pay for access to research in order to do research, then must pay to have their results disseminated and then again to access their own work—all while billions in profits are made by some publishers—is unsustainable. We need to make sure the implementation of Open Access is not done in a way that exacerbates such problems.In its research plan, ANEE has committed to Open Access, so it is a pressing concern for our researchers. However, as Corinne Bonnet commented, the EU’s so-called Plan S will commit all grant-funded researchers in Europe to publishing open access, and other countries will follow suit. A number of universities, the University of Helsinki included, already require it. This means the issue is one of pressing importance; it also means the problems with the current system of Open Access should not be overlooked, either. Both John Kutsko and I pointed out some ethical issues behind so-called Gold and Hybrid access systems. Not only do these systems threaten to create a class system in publishing between well- and underfunded scholars, funders also control what gets to be published. Further, such systems allow for-profit companies to further gouge scholars and universities by charging exorbitant fees at multiple stages of the publishing process. A model where scholars must pay for access to research in order to do research, then must pay to have their results disseminated and then again to access their own work—all while billions in profits are made by some publishers—is unsustainable. We need to make sure the implementation of Open Access is not done in a way that exacerbates such problems.
The discussions we had strengthens my conviction that we scholars need to come together and use our clout as the content creators and primary users to restructure the system. We are able to rethink how we publish and disseminate our work in a way that is more democratic, less exclusive, and fairer. We can also use the opportunity to fix the well-known problems of the current double-blind peer review system. Rather than remaining with a system that accepts for-profit publishing as the exclusive model, we can take back control through non-profit, university- and scholarly association-based methods of publishing. We can lobby societies, universities, and governments to restructure their funding systems to make more grass-roots type support more available. In the meantime, various kinds of scholarly crowd-funding may be an option. In any case, it is beyond time to have some more creative discussions on the dissemination of academic research.The discussions we had strengthens my conviction that we scholars need to come together and use our clout as the content creators and primary users to restructure the system. We are able to rethink how we publish and disseminate our work in a way that is more democratic, less exclusive, and fairer. We can also use the opportunity to fix the well-known problems of the current double-blind peer review system. Rather than remaining with a system that accepts for-profit publishing as the exclusive model, we can take back control through non-profit, university- and scholarly association-based methods of publishing. We can lobby societies, universities, and governments to restructure their funding systems to make more grass-roots type support more available. In the meantime, various kinds of scholarly crowd-funding may be an option. In any case, it is beyond time to have some more creative discussions on the dissemination of academic research.