Access evolved?

Abstract

Just over a decade ago, the contemplative world of scholarly publishing felt the first tremors of a seismic shift in the way in which science is published. Journals and their publishers were shaken by the impact of the world wide web, and a growing feeling among the scientific community that their work should be openly accessible to fellow scientists and the public. The so‐called open access (OA) movement has since gained much momentum and found increasing support among politicians, funding agencies and leading scientists. Various 'pure' OA journals have been established, while OA activists have sought to expand OA to traditional journals. Not surprisingly, such a radical shift in the way science is published and used has created some bitter controversies about the future of publishing and the communication of science. > …after years of fierce debate about the right of scientists and the lay public to freely read, distribute and re‐use the results of publicly funded research […] the discussion seems to be becoming more mature and rational… Nevertheless, after years of fierce debate about the right of scientists and the lay public to freely read, distribute and re‐use the results of publicly funded research—as opposed to the interests of commercial publishers to make money—the discussion seems to be becoming more mature and rational. “We are entering a pluralistic phase, where open access and traditional publishing coexist, though they increasingly are finding their own distinctive places in the research universe and are less likely to compete head‐on,” commented publishing industry consultant Joseph Esposito (Esposito, 2007). In Esposito's view, scientific publishing is shaped like a Nautilus shell, where OA publishing is—or should be—at the centre because it “is most meaningful within a small community whose members know each other and formally and informally exchange the terms of discourse” (Esposito, 2007 …