McMullan Erin
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106, USA.
J Neuroophthalmol. 2008 Mar;28(1):72-4. doi: 10.1097/WNO.0b013e318167cf39.
The public good is served when researchers can most easily access current, high-quality research through articles that have undergone rigorous peer review and quality control processes. The free market has allowed researchers excellent access to quality research articles through the investment of societies and commercial publishers in these processes for publication of scholarly journals in a wide variety of specialty and subspecialty areas. Government legislation mandating "open access" to copyrighted articles through a government Web site could result in a reduction of financially sustainable peer-reviewed journals and a reduction in the overall quality of articles available as publishers, societies, and authors are forced to hand over their intellectual property or restrict the peer review process because of lost sales opportunities. The public is best served when the work of researchers advances science to its benefit. If researchers have fewer current resources, diminished quality control, or access to fewer trusted peer-reviewed journals, the public could ultimately lose more than it could gain from open access legislation.
当研究人员能够通过经过严格同行评审和质量控制流程的文章最便捷地获取当前高质量研究时，公共利益便得到了维护。自由市场通过学会和商业出版商在众多专业和亚专业领域学术期刊出版流程中的投入，让研究人员能够很好地获取高质量研究文章。政府立法要求通过政府网站对受版权保护的文章实行“开放获取”，可能会导致经济上可持续的同行评审期刊数量减少，以及可获取文章的整体质量下降，因为出版商、学会和作者被迫交出他们的知识产权，或者由于销售机会丧失而限制同行评审流程。当研究人员的工作推动科学进步并造福公众时，公众得到的服务是最好的。如果研究人员可用的当前资源减少、质量控制减弱，或者能够获取的受信任同行评审期刊数量变少，那么公众最终可能会因开放获取立法而得不偿失。
