European Commission Report Says Open Access At 'Tipping Point'
from the idea-whose-time-has-come dept
Techdirt has been reporting for some time on the growing number of moves towards making academic work freely available to the public -- for example this recent major boost from the University of California. But what about the bigger picture? How is open access doing overall? The European Commission has just published a new report trying to answer those questions, which offers an extremely upbeat assessment:
The global shift towards making research findings available free of charge for readers -- so-called 'open access' -- was confirmed today in a study funded by the European Commission. This new research suggests that open access is reaching the tipping point, with around 50% of scientific papers published in 2011 now available for free. This is about twice the level estimated in previous studies, explained by a refined methodology and a wider definition of open access. The study also estimates that more than 40% of scientific peer reviewed articles published worldwide between 2004 and 2011 are now available online in open access form. The study looks at the EU and some neighbouring countries, as well as Brazil, Canada, Japan and United States of America.
Despite that good news, there's no room for complacency. As we've noted before, publishers reluctant to come to terms with open access have started pushing back in various ways. But as the EU report indicates, they are clearly on the wrong side of history now.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu commission, european commission, open access
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Either way though, definitely progress considering how the old number was just 25%.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The question is how effective it is and how groups that are aligned to the public are working out. At least the Pirate Parties have been pushing for a while.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"explained by ... a wider definition of open access."
NOR is there any "tipping point" to information: that refers to, say, physical balance after which a system is propelled by gravity. But in publishing it's possible that 99% could be trivial crap under open access and the remaining 1% the only worthwhile still with active copyright.
Just to show you what real analysis is like, to contrast with your going gaga over every suggestion that your notions are taking hold.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We don't want 'open access' to have a wide definition. It should not include locking up publicly funded research behind a paywall for twenty years before releasing it free of charge. Open access needs to have a narrow definition.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraudulent research
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fraudulent _title_ to your post
Nice way to misrepresent the ramifications of an interesting piece of research.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brainwashed American is obvious
huh
wat
Do you into words ?
PLoS Med. 2005 August; 2(8): e124.
Published online 2005 August 30. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
PMCID: PMC1182327
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
80% of the CONCLUSIONS are false.
Which in itself is also a conclusion of research.
Which must of course be 80% false or have an 80% chance of being false.
So you are quoting a research conclusion (WRONGLY) that has an 80% probability of being false.
Way to sound smart M8 !
HURRR DURRR , scientific study proves scientific studies are false
Seriously M8 , you taking the piss ?
Geeeze when will accept reality. The research is 99.999% legit. It's the conclusions that are wrong. So they should be. That is why people argue in science, it is why you have peer review. It is the breeding ground of ideas and data analysis.
Research Data >>>> Analyze Results >>>> Conclusion
Research Data >>>> Analyze Results >>>> Conclusion
Research Data >>>> Analyze Results >>>> Conclusion
Research Data >>>> Analyze Results >>>> Conclusion
Research Data >>>> Analyze Results >>>> Conclusion
...........until the agreed conclusion is proven or probability proven to be greatest.
Also, Global warming...
97% of 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers agree warming is man-made.
How many of those researches used different data, different analytical tools etc..
Probability of global warming being man made is the greatest when compared to the probability of any earthly or astronomical reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Brainwashed American is obvious
Well, to be perfectly honest, the paper's main recommendation is that "scientists should learn more about statistics" --- one of the main causes is that research results concentrated on achieving the wrong statistical result ("p value").
Still, another reason behind the result was bias --- and this includes "publication bias" --- caused by journal publications accepting less papers with negative or merely replicative results because they are "less sexy" and worse for marketing. The move to (presumably less profit-driven) open access should actually cause this bias to decrease --- another, less talked about advantage to open access.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fraudulent research
The goal of a scientist is to prove X or Y.
The stuff of legends is to prove an accepted conclusion of probability as false.
Think Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler who through time proved that the Earth revolves around the sun.
Proving an accepted theory like man-made global warming is false... is the Holy-Grail for climate scientists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]