Here is the article hopefully publishing_online.pdf Why not read it first?
The first letter discusses some research the writer did concerning the availability of research articles online and the number of citations the articles received. The writer discovered (no surprise here) that the number of times articles are cited is directly proportional (straight line gradient graph for the mathematically challenged) to the number of articles online. In other words the more articles available free online, the more times articles are cited, and therefore by inference, read. The writer of this letter uses this as a laudable argument to promote the idea that all scientific literature should be available free online for the good of society.
The second letter tries to argue that as authors don’t want paying (really?) for their articles, they should encourage publishers to give free access to their articles at a fair price, via a fee charging publisher website… This argument confused me and was unconvincing becaue here was no evidence and it consisted of counter-intuitive statements. If an author really wants to give free access to their articles they can set up a blog on WordPress. (do I get something for the seamless promotion?)
The third letter discussed ‘impact factors’ without explaining what was meant but it appears to mean citation frequency. The letter reads to me as if the writer was a bit too obsessed or maybe sared with the possibility that online publishing of research articles could affect citation frequency (too late, read the first letter). The writer gives the impression that citation frequency is an end in itself for research but then I am only a student so what do I know?
Letter four (I’d better be careful because the writer lectures at my place of study Portsmouth University) is an excellent and well considered argument about controlling access and subscription charges, based on maintaining the status quo. Sorry, not going to happen – oops there goes my distinction.
Finally the fifth letter is from a writer in Pakistan who justifiably agrees with the first letter that all scientific research should be freely available online.
In conclusion the balance of the letters seem to suggest that academics (I know 3 out of 5 is not a very large sample) are worried by the changes the Internet will bring to the publishing of research articles. I would suggest to those on this side of the argument to forget evolution and consider revolution (note link to one of the letter headings). The Internet via wikis and blogs and other engines offer unlimited and uncontrollable ways for research to be made available to the academic and public world. Forget the past and brainstorm (yes I am anti pc) the future because evidence suggests that the two things you can’t do with the Internet is control it or predict where it’s going. Who would have predicted its take-up twenty years ago? Who would have believed Wikipedia would work (I know it’s not perfect but it’s ’impact factor’ – an in joke if you’ve read this article – is huge). Down with Journals and long live the Internet….
Good review Chris, I like the ’seamless promotion’ comment – very cheeky
I also can’t believe that authors don’t want paying for their articles – seems like an odd argument to me….
As an academic I seriously don’t expect any royalty payments for my publications. The first reward is the recognition from the review board who accept it for publication. The second is that your publication list is one way of demonstrating that you’re research active and this keeps the uni happy. The bonus thrill is when other authors start citing your ideas in their own work and if having my papers freely available increases this then I’d be happy about that.