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
  • [41] Open Access Publishing
    Lumb, Philip D.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CRITICAL CARE, 2012, 27 (06) : 535 - 536
  • [42] Open Access Publishing
    Doyle, Frank, III
    [J]. IEEE CONTROL SYSTEMS MAGAZINE, 2012, 32 (02): : 18 - 83
  • [43] Open Access publishing
    Rankin, JA
    Franklin, SG
    [J]. EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES, 2004, 10 (07) : 1352 - 1353
  • [44] Adapting to the Changing Landscape of Open Access Medical Publishing at JAMA Network Open
    Perencevich, Eli N.
    [J]. JAMA NETWORK OPEN, 2024, 7 (07)
  • [45] Open publishing of public health research in Africa: an exploratory investigation of the barriers and solutions
    Ruredzo, Pasipanodya Ian Machingura
    Agyei, Dominic Dankwah
    Sangare, Modibo
    Heller, Richard F.
    [J]. INSIGHTS-THE UKSG JOURNAL, 2024, 37
  • [46] Open Access Publishing
    Hadfield, Amelia
    Zwitter, Andrej J.
    [J]. POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE, 2013, 1 (02): : 102 - 103
  • [47] Open access publishing
    Hare, Doug
    [J]. CANADIAN VETERINARY JOURNAL-REVUE VETERINAIRE CANADIENNE, 2007, 48 (06): : 565 - 566
  • [48] Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries
    Albert, Karen M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF THE MEDICAL LIBRARY ASSOCIATION, 2006, 94 (03) : 253 - 262
  • [49] Open access publishing and medical physics authors: An update
    Hendee, William R.
    [J]. MEDICAL PHYSICS, 2008, 35 (05) : 2195 - 2196
  • [50] Open access publishing: a new direction for medical journals
    Jones, Roger
    [J]. BRITISH JOURNAL OF GENERAL PRACTICE, 2012, 62 (603): : 514 - 515