Comments on: Open Access Debates (1): A critique of the elitist aspects of Open Access in general https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-access-debates-1-a-critique-of-the-elitist-aspects-of-open-access-in-general/2012/12/17 Researching, documenting and promoting peer to peer practices Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:58:02 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=5.5.14 By: Stevan Harnad https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/open-access-debates-1-a-critique-of-the-elitist-aspects-of-open-access-in-general/2012/12/17/comment-page-1#comment-495161 Wed, 19 Dec 2012 05:58:02 +0000 http://blog.p2pfoundation.net/?p=28317#comment-495161 OPEN ACCESS MEANS ACCESSIBLE TO ALL

1. Yes, most peer-reviewed research is written primarily by researchers for researchers, to be used, applied and built upon, in further research, to the benefit of the tax-paying public that funds the research.

2. But making peer-reviewed research Open Access (OA) means making it freely accessible online to everyone — not just the researchers for whom it is primarily written, but anyone who is interested in accessing reading and using it.

3. Fields vary in how much of their research is interesting and comprehensible to the public.

4. The reason the peer-to-peer nature of basic research needs to be stressed in the case of OA is that whereas there may be a wider user-base than just researchers in some research fields, the providers of the research we are trying to make OA are researchers. Hence a strong and realistic reason is needed to induce them to make their research OA (and to induce their institutions and funders to mandate — require — them to make their research OA).

5. That strong, realistic reason, for most research, is certainly not a burning need and desire on the part of the tax-paying public to read that research; to imagine otherwise (in the majority cases — and we have to consider the majority of cases if we hope to provide all researchers to provide OA) is just fantasy, or ideology.

6. Besides, as mentioned, if you succeed in inducing researchers to make their research OA (and to induce their institutions and funders to mandate — require — them to make their research OA) then the research is accessible to all interested users, not just researchers.

So my advice would be to set aside ideology and misplaced concerns about “elitism,” and focus on pragmatics and strategy, so as to get the content in question freely accessible online, to one and all.

And as much CC-BY as users need and authors want to provide will come too, after we have universal OA (free online access). To over-reach for CC-BY now, instead of grasping the free-online access that is already within reach now (if researchers provide it, and their institutions and funders mandate it) is to forego the already accessible (and urgent, and already long overdue) Better for the still inaccessible Best. Ideology again blocking pragmatic, and progress…

]]>