Dear HIFA colleagues,
Here is the link to the text of my previous message, with 61 points from the discussion, arranged under subheadings:
https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/reflections-hifa-discussion-open-access...
We have also uploaded three outputs to the HIFA website:
1. The full compilation (127 pages)
https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/HIFA-OA-full-c...
2. Edited version (verbatim content organised under subheadings) (43 pages)
https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/HIFA-OA-edited...
3. Selected extracts (3 pages)
https://www.hifa.org/sites/default/files/publications_pdf/HIFA-OA-select...
For me the biggest issue is excessive APCs. The question is: how to address this? Two main approaches were proposed. The first is to encourage research funders to take responsibility for APCs, but to cap them at reasonable amounts while demanding transparency of costs from journal publishers. The second is for funders to stop paying APCs altogether, which is the new position of the Gates Foundation. For me, the first approach makes more sense: it is pragmatic and it embraces open access journals (most of the leading OA journals include APCs as their business model). The second approach appears to be ideologically driven and undermines the leading OA journal publishers; it also reduces choice for authors, forcing them into pre-defined action.
During this discussion I also learned about the importance of a pluralistic approach (thanks to Ginny Barbour). It is neither desirable nor achievable to push for a one-size-fits-all. The most important consideration is whether an approach strengthens or weakens the global evidence ecosystem, and thereby enhances or restricts knowledge translation. In my view the first approach (capping APCs) is evolutionary and strengthens the system, whereas the second approach (withholding APCs) is reactive, clumsy and unconstructive. (Having said this, I look forward to hear the views of those who support the Gates policy.)
HIFA will of course remain available for further discussion on any aspect of open access.
With thanks, 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