Science of the Common Man

Closed access publishing is an artifact of the bygone era during which it was largely believed that only a few, great men were the pioneers of knowledge, and the masses of the "common man" were mere spectators along the river of science. In the past, every effort was made to limit the demographic diversity of university and professional populations. Notions of racial and gender superiority encouraged institutionalized discrimination. Women were only able to become full members of the University of Oxford in 1947. US law allowed public schools to remain segregated until the US Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.

Now, I am by no means comparing closed access publishing with racial or gender discrimination. I am noting, however, that the basic result (that of limiting participation within a certain arena of academic pursuit) remains the same. In fact, closed access publishing is blind to the color, creed, and nationality of those whose quest for knowledge it inhibits. And although the matriculation barriers of the past took the form of laws, monetary and reproduction restraints are little different in my mind.

One of the beauties of scientific publishing is that there is no educational, socioeconomic, or gender prerequisite for contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. All that is required is a novel idea. On the surface, at least. Here, the distinction arises between what is de jure (of set requirements, i.e. law, standards, directives, etc.) and what is de facto (of fact).

On one point, all can agree: there are few to no de jure limitations to contributing to science. While these were present in the past (with specific references in the first paragraph), they have all but died out in today's age. Unfortunately, de facto barriers, some of which inescapable, remain. The average American (lets call him Alvin) does not have access to a well-equipped lab, not by the virtue of any federal, state, or local law decreeing it (as would be in the case of de jure) but rather by the virtue of Alvin's not being employed (and not having the qualifications necessary to be employed) by a university or company with said facilities. This widely acknowledged situation is quite acceptable by all standards. However, the fact that Alvin cannot read the latest research on dark matter because it was published in a closed access journal and not self-archived in a free repository IS a problem.

Now Alvin may have been able to contribute, at least in some small way, to the understanding of dark matter. But instead he was frustrated, and in general turned off, by the constant presence of pages demanding payments he cannot afford with his sub-median salary, and thus he abandons his scientific pursuit.

While I am sure many of you will scoff at this notion that closed access snowballs into lost contribution to science. But even those who doubt that de facto problems are problems, or even that people like Alvin can offer any valuable insight, I have to ask: is continuing along with the status quo worth the risk?

It is clear that barriers in science remain from those older times, the only difference being that they have successfully hidden themselves within the paradigm of social acceptability. They have shed their ostentatious de jure robes and have chosen instead the de facto ghillie suit. Their purpose remains unchanged.

Nathan