The Debacle (3)...open-access, good or bad?
"Open access" journals are springing up. Their content is entirely free. Costs are recouped (sp?) by the publisher by charging page ($1000-3000 typically) fees to journal authors. If open-access journals succeed in pressuring for-profit journals into more responsible behavior (ie - honoring the unwritten contract with faculty who provide free content, review and editing services), then that's good enough for me. But while I wish I could say that I applaud open-access journals I think that they're treading a dangerous path. In most (or perhaps all?) cases, the authors will retain the copyright, which in principle is good, but in practice it's not clear to me how this solves the real issues. Such journals will favor better funded labs who can afford the charges. Editors will be under substantially increased pressures to accept papers in order to generate revenue, and editors who are compensated for their work face a conflict-of-interest in this case. Supplemental revenue streams, like ads, can be expected to be heavily cranked up, again leading to serious conflict-of-interest concerns for publishers who may be temped to try to emphasize papers that please their advertisers.
I don't think in the present conceptions that open-access can solve the publishing mess. But the open-access movement is shaking things up, stimulating some fresh discussion, and rattling cages that needed to be rattled. Will it be the path that leads to a better solution?