Suppr超能文献

向公众开放:付费墙与开放获取医学研究出版的公共理由。

Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.

作者信息

Day Suzanne, Rennie Stuart, Luo Danyang, Tucker Joseph D

机构信息

1Institute for Global Health and Infectious Diseases, 130 Mason Farm Road, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 27599 USA.

2Department of Social Medicine, 333 South Columbia Street, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, 27516 USA.

出版信息

Res Involv Engagem. 2020 Feb 28;6:8. doi: 10.1186/s40900-020-0182-y. eCollection 2020.

Abstract

Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.

摘要

在医学研究中关于开放获取出版的讨论中,公众的声音基本上缺席了。然而,公众作为资助者、倡导者、研究参与者和患者,对确保医学研究成果的开放获取有着浓厚的兴趣。通过限制对研究成果的获取,当前的出版系统使得研究对公众负责变得更加困难。付费墙破坏了公众宣传工作,而公众宣传需要开放获取以便为政策变革和研究资金进行游说。研究参与者慷慨地投入时间和精力参与研究,他们的前提是研究结果将得到广泛传播。最后,公众作为健康信息和决策资源,在开放获取出版方面也有利害关系。本评论探讨了公众的这些关键作用,以便为开放获取医学研究制定一个公众理由。我们概述了对当前学术出版生态系统的批评,从公众角度重新聚焦开放获取辩论,并回应一些反对公众开放获取的论点。虽然医学研究的开放获取不是万灵药,但消除付费墙和其他公众获取障碍至关重要。公众是医学研究数据的关键利益相关者。

相似文献

2
The ethics of open access publishing.开放获取出版的伦理。
BMC Med Ethics. 2013 Mar 22;14:16. doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-16.
3
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.
4

引用本文的文献

7
A pathway to strengthening open science: comments on the draft .加强开放科学的途径:对草案的评论
Front Pharmacol. 2024 Mar 1;15:1304950. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2024.1304950. eCollection 2024.

本文引用的文献

2
Lay Summaries of Clinical Study Results: An Overview.临床研究结果的通俗概述:综述
Pharmaceut Med. 2019 Aug;33(4):261-268. doi: 10.1007/s40290-019-00285-0.
3
Cash for publication is discriminatory, unscientific, and dangerous.
BMJ. 2019 May 13;365:l1915. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l1915.
5
No Free Lunch - What Price Plan S for Scientific Publishing?没有免费的午餐——科学出版的“计划S”代价几何?
N Engl J Med. 2019 Mar 21;380(12):1181-1185. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1900864. Epub 2019 Jan 30.
9
The Paywall as Metaphor and Symptom.
Am J Bioeth. 2017 Oct;17(10):17-18. doi: 10.1080/15265161.2017.1365195.

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验