ADVERTISEMENT
Why All Peer-Reviewed Journals Should Be Open Access
The philanthropist Bill Gates is someone I admire very much because he is making a difference in the world, particularly in developing countries. As of January 1, 2015 the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation will require all peer-reviewed published research either fully or partially funded by the foundation to be published in open access journals. There is a two-year transition for this to occur, but by 2017 the 12-month embargo period to allow journals to charge for articles will lift and open access to peer-reviewed published articles funded by the foundation must be immediate.
The Gates Foundation website states, “We believe that published research resulting from our funding should be promptly and broadly disseminated.”1 I say bravo to Mr. and Mrs. Gates! Thank you.
After this was published in the media, I started thinking in today’s digital age, why aren’t all peer-reviewed medical journals open access? I subscribe to several journals, some of which are included in my membership dues (the Journal of Foot and Ankle Surgery for the American College of Foot and Ankle Surgeons, the Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association for the American Podiatric Medical Association) and some I pay to subscribe to (Foot and Ankle International, Foot and Ankle Specialist, the Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery). These subscription journals are not particularly cheap but I think they are important for my career and invest in them. There are others I would like to have access to such as Clinical Biomechanics, the Journal of Pediatric Orthopedics, Advances in Skin and Wound Care and the American Journal of Sports Medicine, but I have limited funds for journal subscriptions so I pick and choose the journals that will provide me with the most useful information.
I prefer to have digital copies of articles I can save in my library for future reference after reading them. I have also advertised for various reasons in journals, both in print and online, so I have an idea of the type of revenue advertising generates. I fully understand there are costs with printing and mailing journals, and even costs associated with an online journal. However, at what point does advertising revenue offset the production costs for a digital journal?
This leads to the next logical question: why are all peer-reviewed journals not open access? I think as print media dies out and digital media completely takes over, this question becomes even more relevant.
In the modern world of evidence-based medicine, it seems that information published in peer-reviewed journals must be open access from a “what is best for society” standpoint. We want to provide the best medical care to our patients based on valid research but we need access to the research to gain the knowledge to provide said care.
I often can find and get the articles that I want but I do not have immediate access. I am on staff at a hospital that has libraries that allow me access to most journals I do not subscribe to. The problem is I do not always see the contents of these journals — which are pertinent to my profession but to which I do not subscribe — to pick and choose which articles I would like to read. I am pretty diligent about combing through searches for lecture and article preparation so I eventually stumble upon most of the articles I would like to read. I would suspect that most medical professionals do not comb the literature as much and miss a significant amount of valuable information that could significantly impact their practices.
It seems to me that content generated for free and peer-reviewed for free in a journal with advertising revenue should be available for free. As the Gates Foundation website states, “With an open exchange of information and ideas, we can better assess evidence, identify opportunities, build trust and learn for each other’s experiences.”1
Reference
