Anne Mollen, University of Münster, former chair of YECREA
Open Science is becoming the standard to which we as researchers need to hold ourselves accountable. This is good news. As the Amsterdam Call for Action on Open Science of 2016 articulates: “Open science has impact and has the potential to increase the quality and benefits of science by making it faster, more responsive to societal challenges, more inclusive and more accessible to new users” . In an age where scientific research increasingly runs the risk of “being denominated to mere opinions” , as Ruth Wodak just recently stated in her acceptance speech on being awarded a lifetime achievement award, a move towards openness is key. Open Access is one of the central components in this overall attempt towards making science more open. That is why, for instance, all Horizon 2020 projects are obliged to publish their peer-reviewed articles as Open Access. Also the scientific community largely embraces the idea of Open Access publications. Next to supporting the general move towards openness, researchers welcome higher citation impacts for Open Access publications compared to Closed Access publications.
But Open Access is also a contested field. One conflict line clearly emerging is the struggle for sustainable and fair pricing models between university libraries on the one side and large publishers like Elsevier on the other. Another concerns the increasing presence of predatory publishers in the field. Their unethical publishing models make navigating the Open Access landscape a true challenge – both for senior as well as young scholars. Eventually, one conflict line predominantly concerns young scholars. Green Open Access allows scholars to publish pre-print versions of their publications in online repositories. This is a option also for young scholars. However, the Gold Open Access that many publishers offer involves paying Article Processing Charges (APCs), which can rise up to several thousands of Euros for articles, monographs or edited books. Such unsustainable financing models pose structural disadvantages for young scholars in Europe and beyond.
While senior scholars are now encouraged to write budgets for Open Access publications into their research grant proposals, young scholars more than often do not have such resources at their disposal. Even though many university libraries offer special Open Access funds to their researchers, access to such funds is often restricted to one publication per year. And more importantly mostly researchers in Northern or Western Europe benefit from such financial forms of support. Gold Open Access therefore increases inequalities between senior and young scholars as well as between scholars across Europe when trying to make their research available. Diamond as well as Fair Open Access Models can be part of the solution. They either charge no APCs, or only if researchers have adequate financial support at their disposal.
But young scholars are mostly working under fixed-term contracts, where constant evaluations of one’s work and one’s publications might make the difference between precarious working conditions or long-term perspectives. This uncertainty requires a certain pragmatism with regards to Open Access on behalf of young scholars. That is why even though Diamond Open Access models are the ones countering unsustainable developments in the field, young scholars would be ill advised to solely rely on them. They should not reject Green or even Gold Open Access publications altogether. Instead their publication strategies need to be diverse, equally including articles – and presumably quite a few – in highly ranked journals that might operate on a Gold Open Access model. When committees decide whom to grant that Assistant Professorship, it will most likely not be the idealistic young scholar who exclusively published in fair but also lower ranked Open Access journals.
Open Access pragmatism should however not turn into Open Access fatalism. It remains important, especially as a young scholar, to support sustainable and fair Open Access models. In their often-precarious working conditions, this requires young scholars to get senior scholars on board. In other words: we need to raise awareness for the discriminating Open Access models that currently dominate the field. Only when senior scholars in their relatively secure positions start embracing and supporting the idea of more sustainable Open Access solutions, can the whole field enjoy the many benefits of Open Science and Open Access.
Being faced with so many challenges when it comes to Open Access, the Young Scholars Network within ECREA (YECREA) has decided to introduce a Task Force that will provide information, guidance, assistance and a voice for young scholars when it comes to Open Access publishing. Our aim is to reduce uncertainty when choosing publishers, to raise awareness about unethical predatory publishing, to help navigating the messy Open Access landscape, but also to work towards creating opportunities for fair Open Access opportunities in the field of media and communication research in Europe. Our ambition is to get involved in shaping the field of publishing, which is currently in transition and make it move towards a more sustainable, fair, inclusive as well as accessible direction.
Photo credit: Ifk
