Many thanks to Neil for the summary of the OA discussion, and congratulations on a large project being brought to a comprehensive conclusion!
I hope Neil's report didn't arrive in everyone's mailbox like it did in mine - compressed into a single paragraph... [*see note below] However, having unpacked it offline, I searched for the word "predatory" - and this was missing.
This is indeed a significant gap. Surely any overview of the pros and cons of OA must include a mention of predatory journals. Most (perhaps 99%) pf predatory journals only exist because of open access. These scientifically useless publications grow fat on APCs and are characterised by a lack of peer review, accepting anything that is paid for regardless of the fact that they are polluting the stream of scientific knowledge. It is fair to say that without open access, there would be no predatory journals. There are many pros for open access, but predatory journals are surely the most significant con (in all senses of the word)
A second issue relates to artificial intelligence (AI). The paragraphs of Neil's report relating to AI, particularly numbers 59, 60 and 61 paint a rather rosy picture.
In particular, "60. A major benefit of OA is that it is visible to AI and therefore contributes to AI processes." Unfortunately, this statement woefully undermines the position of all writers. What this refers to is the fact that the creators of AI chatbots can train them freely on papers published open access.
However most authors' representative groupings (in the UK it is the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society - ALCS - which I used to run) strongly object to having their work swallowed whole, without acknowledgement or compensation. They object to the point of taking legal action - and recently won a $1.5 billion settlement from Anthropic (see https://authorsguild.org/advocacy/artificial-intelligence/what-authors-n...)
I should note that the case against Anthropic was brought by two of the three plaintiffs were non-fiction writers (one of whom wrote on nursing. I would urge you drop or significantly rephrase paragraph 60.
Finally, with my World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) hat on, I think we need a better paragraph 61: "AI makes it easier for unscrupulous authors to submit fake papers". This puts it too mildly. In fact, the papers don't have to be fake, and AI can help authors (particularly as regards improving language). But the precise use of AI has to be declared, because AI can have "hallucinations" and simply invent stuff. What is worse is its use in "paper mills" - creating papers for lazy students and over-ambitious academics. The papers may be OK, but the claim of authorship is a lie.
Best,
Chris
Chris Zielinski
Centre for Global Health, University of Winchester, UK and
President, World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)
Blogs; http://ziggytheblue.wordpress.com and http://ziggytheblue.tumblr.com
Publications: http://www.researchgate.net and https://winchester.academia.edu/ChrisZielinski/
HIFA profile: Chris Zielinski: As a Visiting Fellow and Lecturer at the Centre for Global Health, University of Winchester, Chris leads the Partnerships in Health Information (Phi) programme, which supports knowledge development and brokers healthcare information exchanges of all kinds. He is President of the World Association of Medical Editors. Chris has held senior positions in publishing and knowledge management with WHO in Brazzaville, Geneva, Cairo and New Delhi, with FAO in Rome, ILO in Geneva, and UNIDO in Vienna. He served on WHO's Ethical Review Committee, and was an originator of the African Health Observatory. He also spent three years in London as Chief Executive of the Authors Licensing and Collecting Society. Chris has been a director of the UK Copyright Licensing Agency, Educational Recording Agency, and International Association of Audiovisual Writers and Directors. He has served on the boards of several NGOs and ethics groupings (information and computer ethics and bioethics). chris AT chriszielinski.com. His publications are at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Chris-Zielinski and https://winchester.academia.edu/ChrisZielinski/ and his blogs are http://ziggytheblue.wordrpress.com and https://www.tumblr.com/blog/ziggytheblue
[*Note from HIFA moderator (NPW): Yes, we have an intermittent formatting issue. The message with correct is now available on the HIFA website: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/reflections-hifa-discussion-open-access... ]