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+



Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 5:24am

    That 50% probably counts places that locked up the research for a year or two before it was released. It would be nice to know what that exact number is.

    Either way though, definitely progress considering how the old number was just 25%.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Ninja (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 6:15am

    As we've noted before, publishers reluctant to come to terms with open access have started pushing back in various ways.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
     
    identicon
    out_of_the_blue, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 7:37am

    "explained by ... a wider definition of open access."

    The Bush administration "widened" the definition of "manufacturing" to include hamburger flippers at McDonald's "restaurants". So with this unknown new definition you can't actually compare figures: it's a TRICK.

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 8:49am

    "a wider definition of open access."

    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.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 8:50am

      Re:

      and more works being considered open access merely because the definition of open access changed doesn't mean anything has really improved.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    dd, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 9:53am

    Fraudulent research

    Ioannidis has a well accepted paper showing that 80% of published research is false. I bet we don't see any Global Warming papers released as these criminals fight FOIA every day.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      RonKaminsky (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 11:38am

      Fraudulent _title_ to your post

      Ioannidis's well-accepted paper, if you actually read it, makes it clear that the reason for the conclusions he came to are not because 80% of research is executed by researchers who are intentionally committing fraud or academic misconduct of any kind. He doesn't even mention fraud as a significant cause.

      Nice way to misrepresent the ramifications of an interesting piece of research.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 2:49pm

      Brainwashed American is obvious

      ""80% of published research is false""

      huh
      ""80% research is false""

      wat
      ""research is false""



      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        RonKaminsky (profile), Aug 27th, 2013 @ 6:00pm

        Re: Brainwashed American is obvious

        > It's the conclusions that are wrong. So they should be.

        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.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Aug 27th, 2013 @ 3:16pm

      Re: Fraudulent research

      Another also... The scientist who proves that global warming is not man made would be a super star.
      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.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This