Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor:
In their editorial, Barbour et al.(1) note that the U.S. White House’s issuance of guidance requiring immediate public access to federal funded research publications was a consequential change.(2) Indeed, there is widespread agreement that this policy further signals that open access (OA) publication models are here to stay.
What is less well-understood, however, is that OA models vary widely and that policies to implement OA do – and will - similarly vary widely, and the new guidance doesn’t change this context. Thus, the authors’ assertion that there is “no turning back on global OA” is true – but with significant caveats.
OA publication will undoubtedly continue, but it’s unlikely that there will be consensus soon on what and how. Why? First, there is no one definition of OA. Models include: “green”, “gold”, and “diamond”, with wide variation including:
- Whether only author-accepted manuscripts (AAMs) or final versions are freely available
- How publication charges are funded: authors via article processing charges (APCs), institutional agreements between libraries and publishers, or research funders/sponsors.
Second, there is no consensus on which OA model(s) should and will be implemented. There is ongoing debate over whether the predominant OA model – which requires authors to pay APCs – is ethical and sustainable. However, although models that remove APCs and provide totally free access have been proposed or implemented, e.g., the European Council of Ministers called for the bloc to implement a no-pay model,(3) they have not yet been shown to be financially sustainable at scale.
The US policy is significant, but its impact is likely to be muted and the debates about how to implement OA will thus continue. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy, where the White House policy will have the greatest impact, is expected to be finalized this year. Their draft guidance,(4) if implemented, would facilitate greater access but it does not address fundamental concerns about OA as noted by initiatives such as Plan S, which was initiated by the European Commission and European and global funders. The NIH policy allows wide flexibilities in how authors can meet OA requirements, e.g., it accepts the postings of AAMs as meeting OA requirements and does not require authors to submit only to OA vs. subscription journals. NIH is allowing researchers to use grant funds to pay APCs, but with no increases in budgets to cover them. These changes represent what might be called “OA lite” and will do little to assuage the critics of the predominant OA models.
The emergence of OA reflects fundamental changes in the long-standing model of scientific publishing and has implications for scientific dissemination broadly. OA is here to stay, but its scope and implementation will continue to be variable.
References
1. Barbour V, Flanagan D, Tairi K. No turning back on global open access. BMJ. 2022;379:o2334.
2. Nelson A. Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research 2022 [Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Publi....
3. Sanderson K. EU council's 'no pay' publishing model draws mixed response. Nature. 2023.
4. Request for Information on the NIH Plan to Enhance Public Access to the Results of NIH-Supported Research 2023 [Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-091.html.
Competing interests:
This is not a conflict but relevant to the content. I am the Founding Editor-in-Chief of an open access journal - Health Affairs Scholar: Emerging and Global Health Policy.
10 April 2024
Kathryn A. Phillips
Professor; Editor-in-Chief
University of California, San Francisco
University of California San Francisco, Center for Translational and Policy Research on Precision Medicine, Department of Clinical Pharmacy; ; Editor-in-Chief Health Affairs Scholar
No Turning Back on Global Open Access? Updates and Caveats
Dear Editor:
In their editorial, Barbour et al.(1) note that the U.S. White House’s issuance of guidance requiring immediate public access to federal funded research publications was a consequential change.(2) Indeed, there is widespread agreement that this policy further signals that open access (OA) publication models are here to stay.
What is less well-understood, however, is that OA models vary widely and that policies to implement OA do – and will - similarly vary widely, and the new guidance doesn’t change this context. Thus, the authors’ assertion that there is “no turning back on global OA” is true – but with significant caveats.
OA publication will undoubtedly continue, but it’s unlikely that there will be consensus soon on what and how. Why? First, there is no one definition of OA. Models include: “green”, “gold”, and “diamond”, with wide variation including:
- Whether only author-accepted manuscripts (AAMs) or final versions are freely available
- How publication charges are funded: authors via article processing charges (APCs), institutional agreements between libraries and publishers, or research funders/sponsors.
Second, there is no consensus on which OA model(s) should and will be implemented. There is ongoing debate over whether the predominant OA model – which requires authors to pay APCs – is ethical and sustainable. However, although models that remove APCs and provide totally free access have been proposed or implemented, e.g., the European Council of Ministers called for the bloc to implement a no-pay model,(3) they have not yet been shown to be financially sustainable at scale.
The US policy is significant, but its impact is likely to be muted and the debates about how to implement OA will thus continue. The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) policy, where the White House policy will have the greatest impact, is expected to be finalized this year. Their draft guidance,(4) if implemented, would facilitate greater access but it does not address fundamental concerns about OA as noted by initiatives such as Plan S, which was initiated by the European Commission and European and global funders. The NIH policy allows wide flexibilities in how authors can meet OA requirements, e.g., it accepts the postings of AAMs as meeting OA requirements and does not require authors to submit only to OA vs. subscription journals. NIH is allowing researchers to use grant funds to pay APCs, but with no increases in budgets to cover them. These changes represent what might be called “OA lite” and will do little to assuage the critics of the predominant OA models.
The emergence of OA reflects fundamental changes in the long-standing model of scientific publishing and has implications for scientific dissemination broadly. OA is here to stay, but its scope and implementation will continue to be variable.
References
1. Barbour V, Flanagan D, Tairi K. No turning back on global open access. BMJ. 2022;379:o2334.
2. Nelson A. Ensuring Free, Immediate, and Equitable Access to Federally Funded Research 2022 [Available from: https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/08-2022-OSTP-Publi....
3. Sanderson K. EU council's 'no pay' publishing model draws mixed response. Nature. 2023.
4. Request for Information on the NIH Plan to Enhance Public Access to the Results of NIH-Supported Research 2023 [Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-23-091.html.
Competing interests: This is not a conflict but relevant to the content. I am the Founding Editor-in-Chief of an open access journal - Health Affairs Scholar: Emerging and Global Health Policy.