A Response to “In Defense of Open Access: Or, Why I Stopped Worrying and Started an OA Journal”
Open access is often touted as a more ethical option for scholarly communication because it makes publicly funded research available to the public, and in doing so provides free access to research output to anyone. Megan Lowe argues that open access publishing is more ethical than toll access journals for another reason as well. In the article “In Defense of Open Access: Or, Why I Stopped Worrying and Started an OA Journal,” Lowe argues that open access journals are more ethical because they are not profit-driven. Removing the moneymaking element from the equation means that journal editors are not partaking in pay-to-play scenarios, do not have to pander to advertisers or investors, and do not have to shortchange author support and guidance in the name of cost efficiency. For Lowe, ethics are at the heart of a functioning scholarly communication system that benefits all.
To provide an example of an open access journal that exemplifies an ethical approach, Lowe describes Codex, a journal that she launched and continues to maintain as an editor. Lowe contextualizes the Codex summary within a larger framework of the critique of open access publishing as not being rigorous enough, especially in a 2013 study by John Bohannon where he focuses on peer review in open access publications. By contrast, Lowe argues that peer review issues are not particularly endemic to open access journals; certain toll access journals do not employ sufficient peer review, and some open access journals have comparatively high peer review standards. Open access and toll access journals are not in opposition, Lowe suggests. Rather, both models exist on a scholarly communication continuum.
Lowe’s consideration of open access journal publishing as potentially offering a more ethical option for scholarly communication is relevant to my own research inquiry, especially in regards to the encouragement of academic engagement through open scholarship. Lowe suggests that the open access model of Codex positions the journal as a community facilitator, or as a way to “help librarians navigate the publication process, to demystify it, to give them a chance to get their feet wet” (8). She emphasizes the transparency and feedback loops built into the journal’s editorial policies. Although it is conceivable that a for-profit journal could also do this sort of community building and support, Lowe contests that she has not personally had this experience with toll access publications, and does not consider it to be common to the profit-driven model of scholarly communication. In this way, Lowe reiterates the concept that open scholarship is more than straightforward access to research output; rather, open scholarship embodies a set of ethical and practical considerations that broaden the creation, communication, and dissemination of knowledge.
Works cited
Bohannon, John. 2013. “Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?” Science 342 (6154): 60–65. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Lowe, Megan. 2014. “In Defense of Open Access: Or, Why I Stopped Worrying and Started an OA Journal.” Codex 2 (4): 11pp. http://journal.acrlla.org/index.php/codex/article/view/86
