Editorial pubs.acs.org/OPRD
Scientific Knowledge
O
Therefore, whether we like it or not, I believe change is going to happen. The learned societies and publishers that can anticipate and adapt to these changes will be the survivors. We had all better start thinking of ways in which we can make this new system work for the community, not just for scientists, but for all of society. If we do not work out ways to mitigate the possible negative aspect of this new world, the result could be chaos.
ver the years, the cost and the number of journals have grown enormously. In the last 3 years alone, prices have increased on some of our journals by over 70%. Whilst some of these costs may be justifiable, the effect that this is having on the libraries and R&D budgets in companies and universities is very damaging. This has been compounded by the various bundling and desktop computer accessible models that many publishers have introduced. These changes have had the net effect that many institutions, both academic and industrial, do not have full access to some of the latest scientific advances. Indeed, the current system appears to penalize the individual scientist for widely reading the literature, which for some publishing organizations could be viewed as being in conflict with their overarching objectives. The main reason that the taxpayer supports academic research is to further advance our understanding of the world around us and, in doing so, to gradually solve society’s needs such as health care, energy and food production, etc. The ability of scientists to share and build on this understanding has been pivotal to all of the advances we’ve made over the last 100 years. Some organizations, e.g., the Wellcome Trust, are asking the question, quite reasonably in my view: If we are paying for this research, why are we not able to determine who gets automatic access to the results? Governments also are asking similar questions, and there is growing political pressure from research funders to ensure that the product of their funding is disseminated as widely as possible, so as to maximize the benefits of their investments. Many of the academic institutions that are pointing out this issue are the exact same groups that carry out the majority of the research that generates the manuscripts from which many publishers derive such handsome profits. These pressures, in my view, are leading inexorably to a situation where many, if not most, papers will become available through open access. I fully understand the issues surrounding the value of peer review. It is a genuine service that the publishers coordinate. Although nearly all of the reviewers (the scientific community) achieve this without compensation, the review process weeds out many unsatisfactory papers and can help authors to significantly improve their manuscripts. However, with an increasing number of journals and a huge growth in submission of articles, the current system is looking more and more unsustainable. Some journals are willing to grant general access to articles, but this is conditional upon a fee being paid by the author. I would suggest that, if it were not for much of the worldwide scientific assessment process being based largely on impact factors of certain journals, bigger changes would have already happened. The future generation of scientists has a very different view of the world. Open access may entail a greater cost for the author community, but the prize of a greater dissemination of their research may make this a cost worth paying. © 2013 American Chemical Society
David Lathbury
■
AMRI Inc., 26 Corporate Circle, Albany, New York 12212-5098, United States
AUTHOR INFORMATION
Corresponding Author
E-mail:
[email protected] Notes
Views expressed in this editorial are those of the author and not necessarily the views of the ACS.
Published: September 5, 2013 1075
dx.doi.org/10.1021/op400227v | Org. Process Res. Dev. 2013, 17, 1075−1075
