Why don't universities start more of their own open access journals?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights concerns about the monopoly that academic publishing companies hold over scientific information, particularly when much of the research is funded by taxpayer dollars. It references the open-access model of arXiv, which has been successful in the physics community, and notes the NIH's open access policy that allows for delayed free access to research papers. The conversation points out the challenges posed by "high impact journals," which create a financial incentive for publishers to maintain their monopolies, often leading to lobbying efforts to sustain their control over scientific information. Additionally, there is mention of ongoing debates regarding open access textbooks and potential funding cuts for open educational resources, indicating a broader struggle for accessibility in academic publishing.
Science news on Phys.org
arXiv has been open access for years. All major physics journals accept papers posted first on arXiv.

The NIH in the USA has an open access policy which began about 5 years ago: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/. There is a delay in when the paper becomes freely available, but one can still access papers in Nature through the versions deposited in PubMed Central, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21068835.
 
Last edited:
I agree with atyy. Also, even though Elsevier has gotten a lot of (well-deserved) bad press, I feel the OP article oversimplifies the situation- for example, what of society journals (American Physical Society, American Physiological Society, etc.)?

There are reasonable courses of action:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/journals.html
 
gravenewworld said:
It does have a point. Why do academic publishing companies run a monopoly on scientific information when much of it is funded by tax payer dollars?

Because they can.

Also the monopoly in scientific information is partly the result in "high impact journals". In some fields (fortunately not astrophysics), there are some "must publish journals" and if you happen to own that journal, that's a license to print money. One thing that having a monopoly gets you is money to pay lobbyists so that you get to keep your monopoly.

The NIH in the USA has an open access policy which began about 5 years ago: http://publicaccess.nih.gov/. There is a delay in when the paper becomes freely available, but one can still access papers in Nature through the versions deposited in PubMed Central, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21068835.

And there was a hellicious amount of kicking and screaming to get that done.

Right now there is a big fight brewing over open access textbooks.

http://www.hackeducation.com/2011/10/05/appropriations-bill-may-strip-federal-funding-for-open-educational-resources/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top