Non-Open Access Journals - A Call for Reform

There has been a series of blog posts that I have been rather interested in and figured I would point them out to other readers. The topic involves Open Access Journals and scientists reviewing and publishing in them over the Non-Open Access Journals. The points are well made and I do agree with them, unfortunately I do not have any credentials of yet to be able to pick one side or the other. Basically I have to go where I can go, whether that is behind a pay fire wall or not to publish.

It seems to have started about here at SVPoW:

http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/09/29/researchers-stop-doing-free-work-for-non-open-journals/

Then it continued on talking about Nature and Elsevier

http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/15/nature-and-elsevier-on-peer-reviewing/

This was followed but a not really rebutal but reanalysis over at The Open Source Paleontologist:

http://openpaleo.blogspot.com/2011/10/should-we-review-for-any-old-journal.html

And a response to the last post is available back at SVPoW

http://svpow.wordpress.com/2011/10/17/collateral-damage-of-the-non-open-reviewing-boycott/


Whether you agree with them or not this is a very important issue. Especially as scientists become more global and journals should become easier to access. I know on campus I don't have as much problems as many scientists since my school provides me access to many journals that would be cost prohibitive if I did not have this access. Individual journal articles often cost $30-50 which is beyond absurd, and that's even before you know if that article has any content worth while to read. I believe this is something we can work towards, or at least make the current policies a little better.

Mike at SVPoW sums it up best:

"In the long term it is, unquestionably, to the advantage of all authors for open access to become ubiquitous."