Free access to biomedical knowledge

Dodo bird

The NIH’s recent measure responds to a paradox in the field of scientific publications.  It is the classic “chicken or egg” scenario.

First, much of the content generation is done so at no cost to the “publishing house”.  Researchers, sponsored mainly by public institutions – and driven by their own interests and search for knowledge – create new research.  The new content creation is usually based on “free” generation, collaboration and assessment of content.

Second, the publishing companies then add value by managing, editing and distributing that content. In this process, “end-user” scientists have willingly paid publishers for the ability to access this “approved” content.

So the paradox before us is…if the free content is based upon paid content (made available through publishing houses), should the new content be made available for free or follow the publishing payment model?

In fact, there is no black and white answer – but new technologies are creating an even more heated debate.

New technologies and the Internet have simplified the editing  and distribution processes, opening new possibilities for additional  formats and business models, such as open access publications, in  which access to contents is free and redistribution is at your fingertips.  Will the new technologies be able to handle the role that traditional publishers have successfully handled for nearly 100 years in the areas of managing, editing and distributing that content?

In the new model – what becomes of peer review?  In  the traditional method, public institutions fund the management and the peer-review  editing process, since these publications charge researchers for the  distribution and circulation of their work once it is considered  scientifically relevant.

Through PubMed Central, the NIH has generated a centralized system aimed to distribute scientific works which have already undergone a peer-review process, and have made scientists sponsored by the NIH add a clause regarding the copyright’s release to publishing companies, before the last version of their work can be  placed in this repository 12 months before the publication. Congress’s proposal wishes to avoid this kind of measure.

We must take into account that the research process is strongly supported in the maintained publication of new results, which daily becomes the base for additional discoveries by scientists. Better access to information and the implementation of easier conversations, such as access offered by the Internet would accelerate research, as mentioned  by Mr. Akst in The WSJ: “knowledge dissemination is crucial for the creation of wealth and can’t reproduce in isolation.”

It is true that the management of any peer-review process is necessary if willing to maintain the quality and excellence of scientific works,  but it is in any case a process in which scientists collaborate  voluntarily, a process in which new technologies have enabled a new,  easier distribution. And if there is an entity willing to lead the centralization of contents, is it sensible to approve measures not favoring this access to content?

Unfortunately I don’t have an answer.  To deny access to valuable medical information, just doesn’t seem right.  Neither does denying a commercial business the right to operate when it provides a valuable service.

So – chicken or egg?  All I know is this debate is not likely to go the way of the dodo bird anytime soon.

We recommend you to read:

• Interview with Christian Blaschke, scientific director of novoseek
• Social media, web services and tips for health in MedLib’s Round 1.9
• Open access vs Free access
• Earth Day 2010 – 10 relevant Open Access articles to read on that day
• What is your path to successful searches in PubMed?