“If I’m asked to find a story… I will be looking in open access journals.”
Say Hello to Niki Wilson — science journalist.
This post is part of our Open A Conversation Q&A series for Open Access Week.
What does open access mean to you?
I think of information that’s available to you regardless of race, gender, what your chosen career is, or your financial standing.
Access to knowledge is something that’s foundational to democracy. Without it, especially in these really polarized times, I think it’s difficult for us to really make up our mind in an evidence-based way.
What do you think the future of open access will look like?
In my ideal future [access] is fair and equitable. I don’t expect anyone to work for free because …I’m not going to work for free, [but] I would like to see a reasonable and affordable model for accessing scientific papers. For example, I would happily pay a couple hundred dollars to have a Web of Science account. Because professionally that is within what I can do, and it’s worth it.
As a journalist… paying $30 a paper is not reasonable for me when I am only making $700 on a 700-word piece. That really adds up over time. Imagine if I need to refer to 10 or 20 papers! There must be other models that recover costs, but at much lower rates. If not, I think there is a business opportunity here for someone or for journals that want journalists to cover their stories.
There might be an opportunity to work with public libraries. I’m a big fan. I think they have a really important role to play in our future from the dispersal of knowledge to being community hubs that are openly accessible for people from a diversity of backgrounds. My library pass here in Jasper [Canada] is ridiculously cheap — it’s $15 and I can order books from anywhere in the province… I would pay a much greater library fee if it got me access to journals.
Why is open access publishing important for science journalists?
Part of it is about efficiency… If it’s easier for me to access the information, it’s then easier for me to turn it around and write about it for the public. Ultimately, it means I can tell more stories. When you’re on a tight deadline, sometimes choices get made on what you can cover simply because it might come down to whether you can you access [the science] or not.
If I’m asked to find a story in two or three days, I will be looking in open access journals. This has allowed me to cover a number of stories, and what I appreciate is they have been diverse stories, with a broad number of voices, without having to spend a lot of time trying to get a hold of that information.
My job, especially in writing feature articles, is to situate the science in the context of the history of the field.
So I could write about, say a pollination study, but if I can’t situate this new research in the context of what is generally known about pollination, I can’t tell the reader how this new paper advances the field. Is it a breakthrough or not? Is it a small, but important step forward? Why?
You need context to answer these questions. Without access, it’s hard to get context.
Why is open access publishing important for science?
Science works through the examination of the work of your predecessors…their work is either confirmed or disproven…or it’s thrown out altogether and a new line of inquiry [is taken up]. That context around how your field of study has evolved is so critical to understanding and inspiring the next study that comes along. I think if you are having trouble accessing some of that information, it’s difficult to approach science with your fullest capacity.
Not all practicing scientists have access to that body of knowledge and are relying on colleagues to send them papers. Many have told me this in interviews. I think that’s too bad, because when you’re hunting around trying to find colleagues to download papers, you’ve lost a lot of efficiency in your day.
Responses to questions are the views of the author (Niki Wilson).
Read Niki’s work:
