Open access and our system of accessibility essay

It seems to be a flawed system, in which Journal publishing companies are gaining all profit, whereas students and researchers are paying to produce more academic content to put out to the public. The public, in return, may or may not ever even have access to the content that they paid for initially. It’s a process of double dipping by journal publishers. Open access is a great thing.

I believe that open access is crucial to both learning and research. Through open access, scholars, students, and researchers all have information to build off of in their own research. This isn’t Just information put out there by anyone either, it is peer-reviewed and edited material that authors pay for to Journal publishing companies. Full open access should be universal, where anyone can have access to credited information out there. Academic Journals are most important in research, because the information they are getting is actually valuable, which can’t be done with a simple Google search. When one’s work is published in an academic Journal that is most popular, the author themselves is credited on producing such work in such a high credited academic urinal. This is why authors go to big Journal publishers, because of the name brand.

This doesn’t seem all that fair though, Journal publishers are paying their own editors to say what good material is, and what is not. My question is, why does their have to be a middle man Ronald publishing companies)? It seems that the problem would be solved if author’s only sent their academic work to peer reviewers, and then distribute that work to research libraries, who make up eighty percent (“ Is the Academic Publishing Industry on the Verge of Disruption? ” 2012) of research urinal consumers and to the public, who initially pays for the research to be done. The public pays (government pay-outs go to researchers) for researchers to produce more material, yet they don’t have access to the material being produced. Simon Owens states, “ With some of these commercial publishers generating profit margins north of 30 percent, many have questioned whether taxpayers are simply shelling out money to prop up an extremely profitable industry, only to have that industry then turn around and charge high prices to those very same taxpayers if they want to access the fruits of that research” (Is the Academic Publishing Industry on the Verge of Disruption? ” 2012). Unfortunately, this seems to be the case in today’s system of open access.

Another problem with our open access system seems to be for research libraries themselves. Research libraries cannot keep up with the price increases by Journal publishers. If my research library could not afford research journals anymore, how would I be expected to get access to valuable information to compose my own research? I wouldn’t have access to valuable information.

Thus, my wan research would in turn be invaluable. Simon Owens states that, because of this price inflation, “ This is why librarians have been some of the loudest advocates for open-access Journals. But though they have clear financial motives for this advocacy, they have been Joined by many academics in recent years, along with some in the federal government who allocate billions of dollars annually in taxpayer-funded research grants–grants that go toward the very research that ends up published by these Journals” (“ Is the Academic Publishing Industry on the Verge of Disruption,” 2012).

In all fairness, open access isn’t supposed to be about the credit a publisher will give to your career, or the amount of money the publisher can make off one’s academic works. It’s the principle of distributing knowledge to the public, because the research itself is paid by the public. Also, information should be available to the public anyway, isn’t this what education is all about? Don’t we want our people to have an education? I believe that author’s should see the importance in accessibility as well.

For example, Daniel Miller, an anthropologist, “ argued that anthropologists eave an obligation to ensure that the people they work with should have access to their finding and that we have a moral responsibility to make our work as accessible as possible” (“ On Open Access and Journal Futures,” 2014). All professionals who conduct research should find it important for the public to access information. Without open access, how would published researchers be able to put out more material to the public, if they do not have material to base and build their knowledge off of? Author’s should see the flaws in research Journal publishing companies, and o elsewhere to have their work reviewed and distributed.

If I choose a career in which I need to conduct research, and if accessibility continues to become even more acute, my Job will never be done at its full potential. This goes for my school career (education) as well, If I cannot access information, my school work/research will also be hindered. As you can see, open access is a great thing, it Just needs adjusting. The ongoing price increases are going to slow down and inhibit people from being able to access up to date, valuable information to use in their own academic setting ND research materials. The problem is only going to get worse, it appears, if nothing in the system changes. Information is knowledge, and our people won’t be able to grow intellectually, if they are not able to access information.

It’s true, that nothing in life is free, but if the public is already paying for this information to be researched/ conducted, they should be allowed to have full access to it. We live in a world of greedy people, and Journal publishers are nothing else. If prices continue to rise, and accessibility continues to be a problem, the entire population will be affected, ND knowledge as it is today will be hindered.