Open Access to Scientific Papers May Not Guarantee Wide Dissemination

Feb 19, 2009
Millions of research papers and other scholarly material are available on the internet, however, in many cases a person or library must pay to access them. In recent years, as the internet has helped lower the cost of publishing, more and more scientists have begun publishing their research in open source outlets on the internet. Since these publications are free to anyone with an internet connection, the belief has been that more interested readers will find them and potentially cite them. New research from James A. Evans and Jacob Reimer of the University of Chicago suggests that being in an open source publication does not necessarily increase the number of times a research paper is used by other researchers. Credit: Jupiter Images

(PhysOrg.com) -- If you offer something of value to people for free while someone else charges a hefty sum of money for the same type of product, one would logically assume that most people would choose the free option. According to new research in today's edition of the journal Science, if the product in question is access to scholarly papers and research, that logic might just be wrong. These findings provide new insight into the nature of scholarly discourse and the future of the open source publication movement.

Most research is published in scientific journals and reviews, and subscriptions to these outlets have traditionally cost money--in some cases a great deal of money. Publishers must cover the costs of producing peer-reviewed publications and in most cases also try to turn a profit. To access these publications, other scholars and researchers must either be able to afford subscriptions or work at institutions that can provide access.

In recent years, as the Internet has helped lower the cost of publishing, more and more scientists have begun publishing their research in open source outlets online. Since these publications are free to anyone with an Internet connection, the belief has been that more interested readers will find them and potentially cite them. Earlier studies had postulated that being in an open source format could more than double the number of times a journal article is used by other researchers.

To test this theory, James A. Evans, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Chicago, and Jacob Reimer, a student of neurobiology also at the University of Chicago, analyzed millions of articles available online, including those from open source publications and those that required payment to access.

The results were surprising. On average, when a given publication was made available online after being in print for a year, being published in an open source format increased the use of that article by about 8 percent. When articles are made available online in a commercial format a year after publication, however, usage increases by about 12 percent.

"Across the scientific community," Evans said in an interview, "it turns out that open access does have a positive impact on the attention that's given to the journal articles, but it's a small impact."

Yet Evans and Reimer's research also points to one very positive impact of the open source movement that is sometimes overlooked in the debate about scholarly publications. Researchers in the developing world, where research funding and libraries are not as robust as they are in wealthier countries, were far more likely to read and cite open source articles.

The University of Chicago team concludes that outside the developed world, the open source movement "widens the global circle of those who can participate in science and benefit from it."

So while some scientists and scholars may chose to pay for scientific publications even when free publications are available, their colleagues in other parts of the world may find that going with open source works is the only choice they have.

View an interview with James Evans, assistant professor of sociology at the University of Chicago.

Provided by NSF

Explore further: Best of Last Week – quantum pigeonholing, a hoverbike drone project and the sun goes quiet

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Security contest techies say they hacked Tesla Model S

Jul 19, 2014

The good news: Tomorrow's cars are computers on wheels. The bad news: Tomorrow's cars are computers on wheels. Ma Jie, writing in Bloomberg News, reported this week that the Tesla Model S sedan was the target ...

The future of ultrashort laser pulses

Jul 24, 2014

Rapid advances in techniques for the creation of ultra-short laser pulses promise to boost our knowledge of electron motions to an unprecedented level.

Creating optical cables out of thin air

Jul 22, 2014

Imagine being able to instantaneously run an optical cable or fiber to any point on earth, or even into space. That's what Howard Milchberg, professor of physics and electrical and computer engineering at ...

Recommended for you

How to win a Tour de France sprint

Jul 22, 2014

The final dash to the line in a Tour de France sprint finish may appear to the bystander to be a mess of bodies trying to cram into the width of a road, but there is a high degree of strategy involved. It ...

User comments : 3

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

frajo
1 / 5 (1) Feb 20, 2009
What does the Scientific Community consist of? Is it the scholars, the researchers only? Or is it everybody who is truly interested in scientific knowledge?
The number of citations does in no way reflect the public interest. But scientific knowledge has to be a public matter, not secrets for a few selected high priests and rich guys.
zevkirsh
not rated yet Feb 20, 2009
i think this article was secretly written by science and nature.
denijane
not rated yet Feb 23, 2009
The number of citations has nothing to do with the total benefit from an article. For example people (and by people I mean scientists) always cite the referee article, not the arxiv one. Or they add the arxiv link for convenience, but if possible they prefer to cite the more prestigious one. Why? Because this adds prestige to their own articles. It's a whole mafia. How, then you could possibly compare the over-all value of the two ways of publishing, when they have a completely different purpose in scientific society?

Not to mention the fact that scientific journals are very selective to what they publish (and quite requiring) and thus, the articles published there are much more valued than the free ones, simply because they had passed the selection phase.

But their "value" aside, when I make a research and I hit a subscription-only article, for me, it's like hitting a wall. Because my university doesn't have the money to secure me a subscription for all the journals I need. And who's suffering from that? Me and my research. Is that the way it should be?

I think it's high time to change the idea of paid-articles. If it's printed edition-ok, I will pay for it. But the online editions can and should earn from ads. Not from readers or authors.