Academics: Open Your Damn Material

A response to this post.

If being “competitive” is the goal, and not communicating ideas, then I suppose trying to find the price point that earns the most money makes sense. Yet, most of that money is still going to the publisher, so the author is hardly being competitive. If making profit is more important than communicating, then I have to wonder why the person is doing research at all; follow Stephen King’s lead, by all means. This may be insulting to some researchers, but tough cookies. Time to wake up.

With sites like http://www.lulu.com , there’s simply no excuse not to make affordable hardcopies, and if a person wants to communicate their ideas, to make free electronic copies. We’re moving to a service model, with the author providing the service of creating content and communicating ideas. Academia is being left in the dust because, generally, they’re so tied to old-guard process that they’re keeping their information walled off. My advice: come out of your silos, or suffocate in them.

There have been numerous studies about the importance of information flow and low barriers of entry in fields of study, that found raising those walls and cutting off that flow stifles innovation and progress. I know this, not because I bought some $100 book, but because I used Google scholar to find and read some excellent research. I came to the same conclusion before reading the research, because it's obvious. It can be seen in OSS, on blogs, and on the internet at large.

What gets more attention? Open access articles. What gets more citations? Open access articles. http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0040157

People who find themselves in obscurity need to communicate with more people and look at the purpose of their work. Are they trying to solve a problem? Are they trying to reveal insight about something? Are they reinventing the wheel? If so, talk to more people, and look at the ideas you’re presenting. Maybe they’re not easy to understand, and the ideas need to be expressed more clearly. Maybe people can’t see why the ideas are important, and the ideas need context. Maybe the ideas aren’t actually useful to anyone, but that seems unlikely. It’s far more likely that the ideas aren’t a conversation to anyone. They’re sitting out there, all alone, unconnected, and unloved. Markets are conversations.

Is it time for a PLoS Books, like Sam Rose is suggesting? Yes, it’s overdue. Maybe someone’s already working on it.

Being angry at publishers, to me, ignores the whole issue. Are we to be angry when a for-profit business tries to maximize profit? Are we to expect them to do something different because it’s the right thing to do? They’ll only be interested if it generates more profit. They’re middlemen: they’re waste. Publishing is a service, and it can be done in batches, practically on demand (again, www.lulu.com). Trying to reform for-profit business into functioning like non-profits will never work. Better to make them obsolete.