The grass is not Green on the other side

When the skies turn gray with impending storms and the hilltop fence looms gloomily over the expanse, many turn their thoughts inward and ponder the glory of what lies across the way. While this escapism may work for a little while, its empty promise soon reveals its hollow core when the true nature of the other side of the hill is revealed to be not as verdant as what was hoped. And the same holds true for Open Access, because although the antipodal decline may flaunt a grand diversity of flora, its face is pockmarked with the glaring signs of impracticality.

Green OA, in which papers are archived in freely accessible repositories, may seem a perfect compromise between Gold OA (OA publishing in which authors usually pay) and traditional closed access publishing. However, as the annals of American History have taught us (read Missouri and 3/5ths Compromises), when facing a profound question, a middle ground only manages to avoid decisiveness for so long. At some point, a decision must be made, and procrastinating only leads to increased strife (Bleeding Kansas, anyone?).

Compounding this issue, Green OA is markedly unsustainable. As papers are archived and freely accessible, traffic will be diverted from closed access journals to free repositories. In the basic functional definition of supply-demand economics, demand for closed access publishers will decline, as will their revenues. While as a proponent of OA, I wont shed a single tear at the downfall of a system I find exclusionary, however, such a collapse will cause problems. If Green OA is overemphasized, and Gold OA is not established, the peer review and editorial oversight required for the reliable communication of science would experience a vacuum of infrastructure. Free repositories such as PubMed or arXiv don't complete the critical functions; this burden is heaped upon publishers. Coordinating these things and publishing papers costs money, and these funds must either come from the author or reader end.

As of now, the middle ground is the most enticing option, though I personally find it myopic. If history has taught us anything, let it be not to repeat the mistakes of the past. And although the OA debate cannot hope to compare in magnitude with the profound questions of yesteryear, I feel the fundamental lessons remain highly relevant. With this healthy dose of retrospect, perhaps we can reach the pastures of promise not by trudging across dense foliage, but rather perambulate upon a golden path.

Nathan