The research-impact cycle1
Issue title: ICTI/INIST/INSERM Seminar on Open Access to Scientific and Technical Information
Article type: Research Article
Authors: Harnad, Stevan
Affiliations: Chaire de recherche du Canada, Centre de neurosciences de la cognition, Université du Québec à Montrèal, Canada
Note: [1] Please see the powerpoints for this presentation at: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/self-archiving.ppt and http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/auto-archivage.ppt.
Abstract: Researchers do research in order to make an impact – so that their findings will have maximal effect on the present and future course of learned inquiry. The measure of that impact is the degree to which their work is seen, read, used, built-upon, cited, and applied by their fellow-researchers. It is palpable evidence of this research impact that also brings researchers their material rewards: salary, promotion, tenure, research grants, prestige, prizes. Note very especially that no rewards are sought or received by researchers from toll-revenues for access to their research output. It accordingly follows that all access reduction that occurs because of access tolls translates directly into impact reduction for researchers. From this it follows that to maximize the potential impact of their work, researchers must maximize its potential access. This can be, and is being done, by two complementary means: By publishing it in open access journals (when those exist in their research area) (BOAI Strategy 2) or by self-archiving in open-access eprint archives (BOAI Strategy 1) the work that they publish in toll-access peer-reviewed journals. The maximization of research impact is in the interest not only of researchers and research progress, but of their institutions and their research grant funders, hence also of tax-paying citizens. In the Gutenberg age, open access to the peer-reviewed research corpus was not a possibility, because of the unavoidable true costs of on-paper publication. In the on-line age, all costs other than that of implementing peer review (at most $500 per paper) are no longer necessary. (Toll-access revenues per published paper from the few institutions that can afford access to the journal in which it appeared average $2000.) While there is still a market, toll-based journals can and will continue to exist, but they must co-exist with open-access to the entire research corpus, provided by author/institution self-archiving of all peer-reviewed research output. A little reflection will confirm that there is only one way to resolve the PostGutenberg conflict of interest between what is best for toll-revenue streams and what is best for research providers, now that open access has been demonstrated to be not only possible, but feasible, virtually overnight, through self-archiving. Hence, as of now, researchers have only themselves to blame, historically, for any further impact-loss because of needless access-loss.
DOI: 10.3233/ISU-2003-232-321
Journal: Information Services & Use, vol. 23, no. 2-3, pp. 139-142, 2003
