Open to the public: Paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing

被引:36
|
作者
Day S. [1 ]
Rennie S. [2 ,3 ]
Luo D. [4 ]
Tucker J.D. [1 ,5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 130 Mason Farm Road, Chapel Hill
[2] Department of Social Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill
[3] Center for Bioethics, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 333 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill
[4] Zhitong Guangzhou LGBT Center, Guangdong Provincial Dermatology Hospital, Lujing Road, Luhu Park, Yuexiu, Guangzhou, Guangdong
[5] School of Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 321 South Columbia Street, Chapel Hill
[6] Faculty of Infectious Diseases, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Keppel Street, London
基金
美国国家卫生研究院; 欧洲研究理事会;
关键词
Accountability; Open access; Public stakeholders; Research ethics;
D O I
10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data. © 2020 The Author(s).
引用
收藏
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Rationale for Publishing Open Access
    Pierce, Allan D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THEORETICAL AND COMPUTATIONAL ACOUSTICS, 2022, 30 (01):
  • [2] Publishing habits and perceptions of open access publishing and public access amongst clinical and research fellows
    O'Hanlon, Robin
    McSweeney, Jeanine
    Stabler, Samuel
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2020, 108 (01) : 47 - 58
  • [3] Open Access Publishing: A Public Funding Model
    Sharan, Pratap
    [J]. JOURNAL OF INDIAN ASSOCIATION FOR CHILD AND ADOLESCENT MENTAL HEALTH, 2006, 2 (02): : 38 - 40
  • [4] Open access to research is in the public interest
    Engelward, Bevin P.
    Roberts, Richard J.
    [J]. PLOS BIOLOGY, 2007, 5 (02) : 129 - 129
  • [5] Open Access in Medical Publishing
    Turk, Nana
    [J]. ZDRAVNISKI VESTNIK-SLOVENIAN MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2010, 79 (09): : 638 - 642
  • [6] An open and public discussion about open and public access
    Burg, Karen J. L.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF HISTOTECHNOLOGY, 2008, 31 (03) : 99 - 99
  • [7] Open access publishing in gastroenterology: good for the researcher and good for the public!
    Rej, Anupam
    Menic, Natalie
    Nyamali, Immanuelle
    Punnamkuzhy, Jason M.
    Whelpdale, Patrick
    Sanders, David S.
    Kurien, Matthew
    [J]. FRONTLINE GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2020, 11 (02) : 170 - +
  • [8] The Public Policy Basis for Open Access Publishing: A Scientific Approach
    Nikos Koutras
    [J]. Publishing Research Quarterly, 2020, 36 : 538 - 552