Authors

Elisa Bonaccorso, Universidad Tecnológica Indoamérica, Quito, EcuadorFollow
Reneta Bozhankova, Sofia University, Bulgaria
Carlos Daniel Cadena, Universidad de los Andes, Bogotá, ColombiaFollow
Veronika Čapská, Silesian University in Opava, Czech RepublicFollow
Laura Czerniewicz, Centre for Higher Education Development, University of Cape Town, South AfricaFollow
Ada Emmett, University of Kansas, USAFollow
Folorunso Fasina Oludayo, University of Pretoria, South AfricaFollow
Natalia Glukhova, Mari State U., Republic of Mari El, Yoshkar Ola, RussiaFollow
Marc L. Greenberg, University of KansasFollow
Miran Hladnik, University of Ljubljana, SloveniaFollow
María Eugenia Grillet, Instituto de Zoología y Ecología Tropical, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, VenezuelaFollow
Mochamad Indrawan, University of Indonesia, Depok, Indonesia
Mate Kapović, U. of Zagreb, CroatiaFollow
Yuri Kleiner, St. Petersburg State U., RussiaFollow
Marek Łaziński, University of Warsaw, Poland
Rafael D. Loyola, Federal University of Goiás, Goiás, BrazilFollow
Shaily Menon, Grand Valley State University, Allendale, Michigan, USAFollow
Luis Gonzalo Morales, Instituto de Zoología y Ecología Tropical, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, VenezuelaFollow
Clara Ocampo, Centro Internacional de Entrenamiento e Investigaciones Médicas, Cali, Colombia
Jorge Pérez-Emán, Instituto de Zoología y Ecología Tropical, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Central de Venezuela, Caracas, VenezuelaFollow
A. Townsend Peterson, University of Kansas, USAFollow
Dimitar Poposki, University "Sts. Cyril and Methodius", Skopje, MacedoniaFollow
Ajadi Adetola Rasheed, Federal University of Agriculture, Abeokuta, Nigeria
Kathryn M. Rodríguez-Clark, Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas, VenezuelaFollow
Jon Paul Rodríguez, Centro de Ecología, Instituto Venezolano de Investigaciones Cientificas, Caracas, VenezuelaFollow
Brian Rosenblum, University of Kansas, USAFollow
Victor Sánchez-Cordero, Instituto de Biologia, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, MéxicoFollow
Filip Smolík, Academy of Sciences, Prague, Czech RepublicFollow
Marko Snoj, Research Centre, Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Ljubljana, SloveniaFollow
Imre Szilágyi, Hungarian Institute of International Affairs, Budapest, HungaryFollow
Orlando Torres, Universidad de la Habana, CubaFollow
Piotr Tykarski, Department of Ecology, Faculty of Biology, University of Warsaw, PolandFollow

Publication Date

2014-03-31

Abstract

A level playing field is key for global participation in science and scholarship, particularly with regard to how scientific publications are financed and subsequently accessed. However, there are potential pitfalls of the so-called “Gold” open-access (OA) route, in which author-paid publication charges cover the costs of production and publication. Gold OA plans in which author charges are required may not solve the access problem, but rather may shift the access barrier from reader to writer. Under such plans, everyone may be free to read papers, but it may still be prohibitively expensive to publish them. In a scholarly community that is increasingly global, spread over more and more regions and countries of the world, these publication access barriers may be quite significant.

In the present paper, a global suite of colleagues in academe joins this debate. The group of colleagues, a network of researchers active in scholarly publishing, spans four continents and multiple disciplines in the natural sciences, humanities, and social sciences, as well as diverse political and economic situations. We believe that this global sampling of researchers can provide the nuance and perspective necessary to grasp this complex problem. The group was assembled without an attempt to achieve global coverage through random sampling.

This contribution differs from other approaches to the open-access problem in several fundamental ways. (A) It is scholar-driven, and thus can represent the ‘other side of the coin’ of scholarly communication. (B) It focuses on narrative report, where scholars were free to orient their responses as they saw fit, rather than being confined to binary or scalar choices. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, (C) it distinguishes among institutions and countries and situations, highlighting inequalities of access among wealthy and economically-challenged nations, and also within countries depending on the size and location of particular institutions.

Rights


This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 4.0 License

 

To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.