Emerging-technology expert calls for open access to academic knowledge

I agree that we should not hoard knowledge but giving it away for free will only weaken the already weak position of researchers and academics. Society attributes little value to 'free' services and those that supply them. This is all part of the free-market mindset.

Open content will only cheapen the worth of universities and academics in the public mind. The worth is pretty low now.

To have a more equitable result, the mindset of society will have to change. I will have to move away from the market mindset and towards a collective worth model.

You will not solve that problem unless you find an equivalent replacement for a journal reference. Scientists don't publish in subscription journals because they want secrecy, but because they want the stamp of approval that comes with it. Find a replacement for that "stamp of approval" and you can get what you want. My suggestion for that is to decouple peer review from journals, ie, have review "agencies" where scientists can submit their papers and receive a report in return that they can attach to their paper and just upload it anywhere. Will take some while to establish, but I think it would work.

It must also be said that companies hoard knowledge. In their case it is called 'intellectual property'. Sometimes, they just bury knowledge to maintain advantage.

Goose/Gander.

We should also have 'open access' at Tesco: I should just be able to take from their shelves what I want without paying.

What is Brian Lamb thinking??

@Marcus nearly. Difference being if you did that at Tesco you would have deprived them of a tangible item with material value.

I find the bread baked in store at Tesco to be rather over rated... Not sure I would want 'open access', but then again my garden birds would not object.

@ Nordelius.

Are you suggesting that academic research is 'intangible' and has no 'material value'? Or simply that is has less value that a tin of baked beans at Tesco?

Here is where the border between science and technology becomes obvious. A scientist who works for salary that is paid by the public, should open his research to the public. Anyone who does not want to open his research should go private.

The result of this perfectly legal and just solution will be surprising: a scientist would not need journals, but a private researcher would not need them either.

The argument about the need for the "stamp of approval" is a complete crap. Establishing the World Committee for Science Approval is a bloody communist idea. All such committees, now multiplying like mushrooms after the rain, are born as political fraud, usually - charities, always now - an abode for semi-literate "females" seeking positions of power.

A scientist working in public university already has the stamp of approval. He also, at least in theory, has academic freedom.

Meanwhile, the Web is doing research of its own, doing exactly what Mr Lamb dreads to see: "We can't afford to let the web happen to us: we need to be aggressive and shape it ourselves," as he said. And the Web has already produced a wealth of historical research (some of it - already criminalized by the scared corrupt elite), but that's what people read. Mr. Lamb, of course, is lobbying for public money so that he will be able to shape the Web on behalf of the corrupt elite.

@Counterpunch - no, I am suggesting that the "value" of academic research is actually increased when more people are able to access it and use it. I'd argue that most of the value we get for most research is reputational... the more people who see it, the higher our reputation.

Research in your desk drawer or your hard drive has no value to anyone. Least of all you.

@Michael - was pretty much with you until you brought the crazy in the third paragraph... then it was all downhill. Keep taking the tablets.

Many institutions have begun this process already. Harvard began posting all of its research free of charge directly to the web two years ago. In most models, the 'value' in the sense of the break at TESCO is currently going to the publishing companies. While the service they provided was very necessary for distribution and connecting people twenty years ago, they still charge the same prices without the service.

If this research is currently being paid for with public dollars, why should the public have to purchase it back from a third party publisher that in no way supports the research. It's an extra step.

Well done Brian.

Not surprisingly, there are some mixed comments here. To @davecormier's excellent point ... add MIT Opencourseware project as well.

And to those that believe Public Corporations can't get in on the action as well, I point you to PwC http://www.pwc.com/us/en/open-university/index.jhtml ... which I believe is just the start of things to come. Not perfect, but a start.

In closing, I don't believe we (corp / private / public / academics) are giving 'it away for free'. We're turning 'it' over so that it may become something even better. Altruistic? Perhaps - but isn't society in fact changing to become more collaborative in nature anyway?

Hi - I'm going to side step the whole comparison between IP/physical goods. The real issue here is who paid for it (the content/research) and who owns it.

If I, as a researcher at a public university, conduct research (also funded by the public), then submit that article for peer review by others (who also paid by the public purse), then it is *criminal* if that publicly-funded research is locked into commercial systems and accessible to the public only if they pay for it yet again.

George

@ Nordelius

Of course, logic would suggest you are right: research that is more widely disseminated has greater impact on more people and is thus more valuable (or valued).

But the problem is that the REF and other professional academic structure disincentivise such openness. People get appointed, promoted and funded on the basis of their 'original' research - which means they have to be careful and strategic about the dissemination of it. If I have a good idea do I a) publish it quickly on non-peer-reviewed open access, to allow everyone to benefit immediately; or b) guard it closely, publish it in a leading peer-reviewed journal and use the prestige to win more funding or a promotion?

You might say that this is a problem at the heart of academia, and you may be right. But it's the system we're in, so it's no use complaining that academics are reluctant to embrace open-access, as most of the time it simply isn't in their career interests.

@"Nordelius"
The Web is no longer just a fixed game. The Web is full of fixers supporting party line and insulting politically incorrect posters, but they are easily recognised. The Web is getting rid of the people like you. When you have nothing to say, you do character assassination. On some sites you post under many names and even come in groups. But this is all well known and it is well known where you come from. You have that badge on you, always the same badge of impertinence.

@Michael go on then, where do "we" come from?