Mayo Clinic in Florida, Jacksonville, Florida.
Am J Ophthalmol. 2013 Sep;156(3):423-432. doi: 10.1016/j.ajo.2013.04.033. Epub 2013 Jun 13.
To provide a current overview of the movement for open access to the peer review literature.
Perspective.
Literature review of recent advances in the open access movement with a personal viewpoint of the nuances of the movement.
The open access movement is complex, with many different constituents. The idealists for the open access movement are seeking open access to the literature but also to the data that constitute the research within the manuscript. The business model of the traditional subscription journal is being scrutinized in relation to the surge in the number of open access journals. Within this environment authors should beware predatory practices. More government and funding agencies are mandating open access to their funded research. This open access movement will continue to be disruptive until a business model ensures continuity of the scientific record. A flood of open access articles that might enrich, but also might pollute or confuse, the medical literature has altered the filtering mechanism provided by the traditional peer review system. At some point there may be a shake-out, with some literature being lost in cyberspace.
The open access movement is maturing and must be embraced in some format. The challenge is to establish a sustainable financial business model that will permit the use of digital technology but yet not endanger the decades-old traditional publication model and peer review system. Authors seem to be slower in adopting open access than the idealists in the movement.
提供同行评审文献开放获取运动的最新概述。
观点。
对开放获取运动的最新进展进行文献回顾,并结合个人观点探讨该运动的细微差别。
开放获取运动复杂多样,有许多不同的组成部分。开放获取运动的理想主义者不仅寻求文献的开放获取,还寻求构成手稿研究的数据的开放获取。传统订阅期刊的商业模式正在受到审查,原因是开放获取期刊的数量激增。在这种环境下,作者应警惕掠夺性做法。越来越多的政府和资助机构要求对其资助的研究进行开放获取。这种开放获取运动将继续具有颠覆性,直到找到一种商业模式来确保科学记录的连续性。大量的开放获取文章可能会丰富医学文献,但也可能会污染或混淆医学文献,从而改变了传统同行评审系统提供的过滤机制。在某个时候,可能会出现一些文献在网络空间中丢失的情况。
开放获取运动正在成熟,必须以某种形式被接受。挑战是建立一个可持续的金融商业模式,该模式将允许使用数字技术,但又不会危及几十年来的传统出版模式和同行评审系统。与运动中的理想主义者相比,作者似乎更慢地采用开放获取。