Opening the non-open access medical journals: Internet-based sharing of journal articles on a medical web site

Ken Masters

摘要

Introduction: Open access (AO) journals are freely available, but non-open access (NOA) journals are available only through payment. Similar to the music industry, one might expect a sharing of NOA articles on the Internet. This paper investigates a site facilitating such sharing amongst medical professionals.Method: A six-month snap-shot (25 May to 24 November 2008) of activities on the site.Results: Total articles requested: 6,587; total found: 5,464 (82.9%). Mean number of views of each article: 4.47. Total estimated saving (or loss): $1.4M for the year of 2008. Nature articles were the most highly requested, followed by Science, and other major medical journals.Discussion and Conclusions: This method of accessing data is highly effective, but issues are raised. Ethical issues and financial implications are the most important. NOA journal publishers should recognise the problem, research its size and implications, but the discussions must occur in the open access area. There is no theory of protecting content other than keeping secrets – Steve Jobs, Apple. [1] Introduction BackgroundAlthough there are many definitions of “Open Access” (OA) journals, a useful guide is that offered by the “Budapest Open Access Initiative,” (BOAI) which speaks of “The literature that should be freely accessible online […] which scholars give to the world without expectation of payment” [2]. This description fits best with Willinsky’s definition of an “unqualified open access journal” [3] which allows its articles to be available “immediately, completely, and exclusively free-to-read” [3].OA journal publishing has strong international support amongst researchers and librarians [4-6], and even amongst Research Councils and Institutes [7; 8]. At the time of writing this article, some 5,000 individuals and more than 460 organisations had added their signature supporting the BOAI [2]. There is a growing body of evidence to suggest that OA journals are being cited as much as, and even more than, non-open access (NOA) journals [9-11]. These and other issues, such as the principle of free access, faster publishing times, wider readership, and greater number of citings, are strong motivators to publishing in OA journals [12; 13]. In OA journals, the publishing costs (or a portion of them) are sometimes carried by the authors, or their institutions, or by journal advertising [14; 15]. The author-pay models are not popular amongst researchers [16], and there is some discussion about the possible disadvantages that this model has for researchers in the developing world [17].The path of OA publishing has not been smooth, and the debates around OA publishing continue. Researchers who do not publish in OA journals have cited unfamiliarity with OA, low prestige and impact, author payment issues, and low readership [12; 13]. The arguing points include copyright and other legal issues, peer-review, the value of OA articles, business models, publishing costs, technology infrastructure, business models, indexing services, standards, rewards for researchers and marketing [4; 5; 9; 18-20].In the midst of this are the researchers who want access to the information in NOA journals. The term “researchers,” of course, has a very broad application. The Public Library of Sciences (PLoS), now a publisher of the OA journal PLoS Biology, aims at a “much wider audience, including millions of students, teachers, physicians, scientists, and other potential readers, who do not have access to a research library that can afford to pay for journal subscriptions” [21]. While the term “digital divide” is usually used to apply to the divide between those who have access to the Internet and those who don’t, there also appears to be a digital divide between those who have access to NOA journals and those who do not.To those who do not have access to NOA journals, the information is, as it were, a closed book. Unless they take matters into their own hands. The environment that facilitat

机译：简介：可免费获得开放访问（AO）日记，但仅可通过付款获得非开放访问（NOA）日记。与音乐行业类似，人们可能希望在互联网上共享NOA文章。本文研究了一个促进医疗专业人员之间共享的站点。方法：站点活动的六个月快照（2008年5月25日至11月24日）。结果：要求的文章总数：6,587;总数：5,464（82.9％）。每篇文章的平均观看次数：4.47。估计的总节省（或损失）：2008年为140万美元。需求最高的是自然文章，其次是《科学》和其他主要医学期刊。讨论和结论：这种访问数据的方法非常有效，但是存在一些问题提高。道德问题和财务影响最为重要。 NOA期刊出版商应认识到该问题，研究其规模和影响，但是讨论必须在开放获取区域进行。除了保守秘密，没有保护他人内容的理论–苹果公司的史蒂夫·乔布斯（Steve Jobs）。 [1]简介背景尽管“开放获取”（OA）期刊有许多定义，但“布达佩斯开放获取倡议”（BOAI）提供了有用的指南，其中提到“应在线免费阅读的文献[ ……]学者无偿地向世界捐赠的东西” [2]。此描述最符合Willinsky对“不合格的开放获取期刊” [3]的定义，该定义允许其文章“立即，完全且完全免费阅读” [3]。OA期刊出版在国际上具有强大的支持研究人员和馆员[4-6]，甚至包括研究委员会和研究所[7]; 8]。在撰写本文时，约有5,000个人和460多个组织添加了支持BOAI的签名[2]。越来越多的证据表明，OA期刊被引用的数量与非开放获取（NOA）期刊一样多，甚至更多[9-11]。这些问题和其他问题，例如免费访问的原则，更快的出版时间，更广泛的读者群以及更多的引用，都是在OA期刊上发表论文的强烈动机[12; 13]。在OA期刊中，出版成本（或其中的一部分）有时由作者，其机构或期刊广告承担[14; 15]。作者付费模型在研究人员中并不流行[16]，并且有一些关于该模型对发展中国家研究人员可能存在的弊端的讨论[17]。OA出版的道路并不畅通，争论不休关于OA出版的工作继续进行。未在OA期刊上发表的研究人员指出，不熟悉OA，声誉和影响力低，作者付款问题和读者群低[12; 13]。争论的焦点包括版权和其他法律问题，同行评审，OA文章的价值，业务模型，出版成本，技术基础设施，业务模型，索引服务，标准，对研究人员和市场营销的奖励[4; 5; 9; [18-20]。其中有一些研究人员希望访问NOA期刊中的信息。当然，术语“研究者”具有非常广泛的应用。科学图书馆（PLoS）现在是OA杂志PLoS Biology的出版商，其目标读者是“更广泛的受众，其中包括数百万无法访问图书馆的学生，教师，医师，科学家和其他潜在读者”。负担得起期刊订阅费用的研究型图书馆” [21]。虽然“数字鸿沟”一词通常用于指有权访问互联网的人与不可以访问互联网的人之间的鸿沟，但似乎可以访问NOA期刊的人与那些可以访问互联网的人之间也存在着数字鸿沟。对于那些无法访问NOA期刊的人来说，该信息实际上是一本封闭的书。除非他们把事情掌握在自己手中。便利的环境

Opening the non-open access medical journals: Internet-based sharing of journal articles on a medical web site

摘要

著录项

相似文献

相关主题

期刊订阅