Harnad Stevan
Institut des sciences cognitives, Département de psychologie, Université du Quebec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, H3C 3P8, Canada.
Philos Ethics Humanit Med. 2007 Dec 7;2:31. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-2-31.
The ethical case for Open Access (OA) (free online access) to research findings is especially salient when it is public health that is being compromised by needless access restrictions. But the ethical imperative for OA is far more general: It applies to all scientific and scholarly research findings published in peer-reviewed journals. And peer-to-peer access is far more important than direct public access. Most research is funded so as to be conducted and published, by researchers, in order to be taken up, used, and built upon in further research and applications, again by researchers (pure and applied, including practitioners), for the benefit of the public that funded it - not in order to generate revenue for the peer-reviewed journal publishing industry (nor even because there is a burning public desire to read much of it). Hence OA needs to be mandated, by researchers' institutions and funders, for all research.
当不必要的获取限制危及公共卫生时,研究成果开放获取(OA,即免费在线获取)的伦理依据就显得尤为突出。但OA的伦理要求更为普遍:它适用于发表在同行评审期刊上的所有科学和学术研究成果。同行之间的获取远比公众直接获取重要得多。大多数研究获得资助是为了让研究人员进行研究并发表成果,以便其他研究人员(包括理论和应用领域的研究人员,以及从业者)在进一步的研究和应用中加以采用、利用并在此基础上开展工作,从而造福于资助这项研究的公众——而不是为了给同行评审期刊出版业创收(甚至也不是因为公众急切渴望阅读其中的大部分内容)。因此,研究人员所在的机构和资助者应强制要求对所有研究都实行开放获取。