The debate around open-access publishing

Abstract

What is the greatest benefit of open access publishing? This is a regular question to a journal editor, usually asked by people who have little understanding of what open access publishing means. Many readers will care little beyond an ability to read research articles free of charge and without access restrictions. But open access publishing is much more. It is a revolutionary business model that attempts to suck every shilling from the lazy grasp of publishers and liberate scientists. Articles are not only freely available but copyright is also retained by authors, and articles can be republished without permission or royalty; power to the people and death to traditional publishing? Publishers have responded with an author-pays model that, as its name implies, asks authors to cover production and publication fees, whilst conforming to the requirements of open-access publishing in terms of availability and re-use of articles. Open-access medical journals are being announced with abandon, their uptake encouraged and enforced by research funding bodies like the Wellcome Trust.1 RSM Press has launched two open-access journals of its own in the past 2 years. JRSM Short Reports is a sister journal to JRSM, catering for more specialized and localized research than JRSM can afford space, and has already published around 200 articles.2 JRSM Cardiovascular Disease is a new online journal, launched last month, to encompass all disciplines in this important specialty from basic science to policymaking.3 RSM Press also publishes Acta Radiologica Short Reports on behalf of the Scandinavian Societies of Radiology.4 JRSM itself is not an open access journal, but all research articles are free to read from the date of publication.5 From this account you'd be forgiven for thinking that the greatest benefit of open access publishing is for publishers to recoup losses from the decline of journal subscriptions. That might be a cynic's retort, and publishers will argue that the financial returns from open-access publishing are small, but an editor's perspective is different still. The greatest benefit of open access publishing is widening the debate on scientific research; what's free to read and republish is also free to discuss, dispute, and learn from. Does this mean the end of journals as we know them or does it offer a further justification for their existence? Those journals that are about relevant debate and discourse—whether open access or not—will have an opportunity to flourish, readers will be challenged and provoked, and bold authors will seek out their pages to publish in. This is the unpredictable terrain that the JRSM inhabits. Where else, for example, would you find Margaret McCartney and Michael Dixon, a sceptic and an enthusiast for the current NHS reforms, at home between the same covers?6,7