An open challenge

Abstract

In December 2001, proponents of open access (OA) to peer‐reviewed literature established a new set of ideals for scientific communication. The model they proposed would make accepted scientific papers freely accessible on the world wide web and, to cover the costs for editorial services, would charge the authors instead of relying on traditional subscription‐based income (Budapest Open Access Initiative). More than 3,000 journals now publish under this model, which is receiving growing support from public and private funders, libraries and research institutions. The intrinsic appeal of the OA philosophy and its supporter's efforts have also encouraged funding agencies, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH; Bethesda, MD, USA), and private foundations, such as the Wellcome Trust (London, UK), to institute policies that mandate public availability of the research they support in OA repositories. However, the impact and future of OA in scientific publishing and the economic sustainability of OA models are so far unclear. Other questions also remain: which journals are most likely to be affected—negatively or positively—by OA? If OA has to rely partly on subsidies from public or private funders to survive, and if legislation mandates authors to post accepted papers on government‐run repositories, is there a danger that OA publishers could lose their independence? Here, I review the history and current status of OA publishing, discuss its advantages and disadvantages, and consider the feasibility of interference from funding agencies. I will also discuss the possible medium‐ and long‐term financial outlook for medical and scientific publishers, and propose a business model that both provides the public with access to user‐friendly summaries of the latest research and allows authors to decide how their paper is to be published. The initial support for the OA model of scientific communication came mainly from the scientific community and librarians, who are under …