Speaking about the benefits of publishing his work in the open access journal BioMed Central, Professor Chris McManus (University College London) has this to say about OA:
Open Access is just one of those things that should be a given as far as scientific research is concerned. Science works on an open interchange of ideas, and if things aren't available then ideas aren't being interchanged... why should you do something really interesting and hide it away so nobody can see it?
This argument can certainly be applied to the humanities as well. Without complete access to the results of the best quality research within early modern studies, how can I claim that my PhD is the best it could possibly be? And how does this restriction imposed upon me as an emerging scholar aid the discipline as a whole? What is the benefit of this closed system?
Posts
1 comment:
Miscellaneous thought, because I am in a slightly anti-university mode at the moment. It is possible to view closed journals as being in the interest of not just publishers but also universities. Obviously journals are a cost to universities, but they benefit from economies of scale to spread the cost.
Meanwhile, access to journals is one of the benefits universities offer students and researchers. If articles were freely available, making smaller scale and independent study and research more feasible, how would this affect universities?
Post a Comment