Dear Meena,
Thank you for your message yesterday. https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-119-has-open-access-researc...
It was interesting to hear that you couldn't find any evidence through a PubMed search that OA research directly saved a life. This means that we have now been unable to find any examples where open access to research has saved a life (or even contributed to quality of care) despite:
1. repeatedly asking HIFA members through this forum
2. asking ChatGPT through two approaches (one by myself and one by HIFA member David Cawthorpe), and
3. running a PubMed search.
This doesn't mean that such examples don't exist. But it does suggest that we may overestimate the potential direct impact of access to the full-text of research on patient care. On the other hand, open access has major indirect benefits as we have previously discussed.
Thank you also for listing some of the benefits of OA journals. For me, this emphasises the value-added that journals can bring in terms of quality and accessibility to different end-users.
This reminds me of Thomas Krichel's recent message in response to my assertion that 'OA journals continue to have a vital role to play'. He replied: "They surely vitally enrich publishers. But since publishers in general don't pay reviewer---who do the actual evidence work---journals do very little to further evidence." https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-accesss-105-unanswered-questions-5...
I would agree that some OA journals charge excessive APCs to generate more profit. And I agree that publishers in general don't pay reviewers. But I disagree that journals do very little to further evidence. The publishing process, including editorial assessment, copy-editing, communications with authors, peer review, proofreading and final sign-off for publication add a great deal to further evidence. The publishing process is one of the six pillars of the global evidence ecosystem. https://www.hifa.org/about-hifa We need to strengthen the pillar, not weaken it.
Some of us (including myself) argue that research funders should take responsibility for paying APCs, but that these whould reflect actual costs which should be transparent - similar to what was proposed by Plan S several years ago. This could be driven simply by capping the APC budget line. The Gates Foundation disagrees and has decided to stop paying APCs altogether, a decision that is arguably reckless. Uzo Adirieje wrote: 'When a research project funder like Bill Gates Foundation decides to stop paying Article Processing Charges (APCs), it can significantly affect the visibility, accessibility, utilization, and impact of funded research. Without APC support, researchers may not be able to publish in open-access journals, with the risk of limiting global access to their findings — especially in low- and middle-income regions.' https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-104-should-funders-stop-pay...
Several days ago I invited the Gates Foundation to join our discussion and await their response.
Meanwhile, I would agree with one aspect of the Gates policy: that non-APC-based models should be explored. We need to understand the different business models of diamond OA journals (those that do not charge APCs) and how they work. 'Diamond open access refers to academic texts (such as monographs, edited collections, and journal articles) published/distributed/preserved with no fees to either reader or author... applied to a variety of structures and forms of publishing, from subsidized university publishers to volunteer-run cooperatives that existed in prior decades.' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_open_access
We previously heard from Ruwaida Salem, managing director of Global Health Science and Practice. GHSP is a diamond OA journal that was previously funded by USAID and has recently relaunched since USAID was dismantled. You can read about their experience here: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-34-removing-barriers-betwee...
There has indeed been a gap in our discussion in relation to promising new models such as diamond OA journals. We are coming to the end of our official discussion time but I leave the forum open for further contributions. Please send emeil to: hifa@hifaforums.org
With thanks and best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org