Good Guardian blog yesterday giving a lay summary of the ‘open access’ debate vis a vis papers published in scientific journals. There’s also been a healthy exchange of letters in The Times this week but ironically that’s behind their paywall. However, at least The Times is available in all good newsagents at a reasonable price.
Unsurprisingly, I totally get and support the arguments in favour of open access. But inveterate blogger and public engagement in science expert, Alice Bell (blog home page here), twittered this morning that open access is more than just about publishing papers. Hear, hear!
I believe the arguments being made by research funders and others, that ‘open access’ has societal benefits, are sincerely held. But, at the same time, the debate does sometimes come across like a power struggle between the mighty and the mighty.
How good, indeed seismic would it be, were funders to use the same public interest arguments to ensure that the people they fund got their act together, not just about where they disseminate their research but how they disseminate it.
Public understanding of science will be marginally improved by better access to articles. Yet, it could be radically improved if we also saw a commitment to the writing of a good lay summary of their work and to see this appear with every published article. For some reason, funders have seemed reluctant to pay serious attention to this as an important tool to understanding science, its dissemination and impact. But it’s clearly in the public interest.
See the PatientsParticipate project for more.
Got to dash!
Categories: medical research