Accueil > Vie et moeurs de la documentation juridique > Des nouvelles du monde merveilleux de l’édition juridique > Les effets du libre accès dans l’édition

Les effets du libre accès dans l’édition

mardi 11 octobre 2005, par Stephane Cottin

Vu sur le site Open Access de l’Inist, cette information :

Les effets du Libre Accès dans l’édition

qui renvoie à un rapport de l’Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers (ALPSP) The facts about Open Access.

Evidemment, leurs conclusions sont décevantes car elles enfoncent des portes ouvertes (1. It is too early to tell whether Full Open Access is a viable business model. 2. Scholarly journal publishing is in an unprecedented state of flux. 3. Peer review and copy-editing may be less rigorous with Full Open Access journals) mais j ’aime bien leur façon de procéder : simplement le recueil des faits, et particulièrement la recension des arguments pour et contre les assertions suivantes (page 20) :

Assumption 1 : Open Access is a consequence of a few large publishers gouging the market.

A number of publishers on both sides of the fence suggested that Open Access was a consequence of a few large publishers gouging the market. Defenders of Open Access claimed that large publishers making excessively high profits drove the Open Access movement, whereas many Subscription Access publishers complained that they should not all be lumped into the ’high profits’ group.

Publishers said :
- ’It’s unfair to lump all publishers in to one group and accuse them of charging excessive subscription prices, and then use this as an argument for Full Open Access. We have worked very hard to keep subscription prices down.’
- ’The main thing that Open Access protagonists seem to be concerned with is that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Publishers are being tarred with the same ... brush. Some publishers are doing good things.’

Assumption 2 : Open Access is a result of a lack of broad distribution of important scientific information.

Many publishers vigorously challenged this assumption and articulated their specific efforts to ensure all scientists have access.

Many publishers gave content free to third world countries, where another publisher gave ’nag access’ to content whereby scientists unable to pay for access were given access through their institution.

Assumption 3 : Opening up access to consumers is a viable reason to support Open Access.

Many publishers indicated that consumers have little interest beyond the major medical journals.

Another publisher stated authoritatively that 97% of the public in the US is within 10-15 miles of a public library and therefore has free access already.

Assumption 4 : Open Access models do not take into consideration the value-added activities contributed by publishers.

A Full Open Access publisher said, ’Study the value that a publisher claims to add and [see] if they can justify the cost charged for access.’

On the other hand, a Subscription Access publisher said, ’The value-add publishing provides is still not understood. Many believe publishing online is free. Funders become irritated when they can’t put up articles based on the research they supported. There is a cost difference between producing the research results and publishing the research.’

Questions were raised by some interviewees about what might happen under Open Access to the non-original research features so popular and expensive to produce. One publisher that historically has served as an opinion leader was experimenting with offering original research for free immediately upon publication but then putting editorials, perspectives, Continuing Medical Education, etc., under access controls for individuals and institutions

SPIP | | Plan du site | Suivre la vie du site RSS 2.0