BY DAVID LAU

In print | September 14, 2006

On Sept. 6, a group of 56 presidents from various liberal arts colleges around the country issued an open letter supporting the Federal Research Public Access Act of 2006. This letter, which was co-signed by Swarthmore College President Al Bloom, brought the issue of open access research further to the forefront of higher-level education.

“was pleased to [sign the letter] for precisely the reasons the letter urges support of the legislation,” Vice President Maurice Eldridge ’61 said in an e-mail. He went on to say, however, that “the college is not a part of any national movements to support or oppose the legislation.”

According to the letter, the act “would require federal agencies whose external research budgets exceed $100 million to develop policies that would ensure public access via the Internet to their funded research.” The letter further explained that “the [act] would be a major step forward in ensuring equitable online access to research literature that is paid for by taxpayers.”

“In a nutshell, the basic idea [of open access] is that academic research should be published in venues without restrictions to use,” Department of History Professor Timothy Burke said. “We as a college are supporting faculty to carry out research which the academic author receives nothing for, and then the library has to pay to be able to read it. This is a bizarre economic irrationality.”

According to InsideHigherEd.com, an online Web site providing news and opinions related to higher education issues, the current system of research publishing creates costs that far exceed many libraries’ budgets, thus making it increasingly difficult for students and faculty to follow research.

Swarthmore College is not strongly affected by the high costs that most other libraries have to pay. “We provide access to a very large amount of the scholarly literature published in English,” College Librarian Peggy Seiden said in an e-mail.

In addition, the many different proposed solutions that would involve some form of open access are not without flaws. “I’m not sure all the models for open access will work,” Seiden said. “Models like [the Federal Research Public Access Act] will help move information into the public sector, but the traditional STM literature isn’t going away anytime soon. That will likely take big changes in the tenure review process at research institutions, and open access alternatives to commercial journals will need to carry the same kind of imprimatur and cachet as what they replace.”

Seiden also said that apart from the letter signed by President Bloom, the library had not been in close contact with the administration to work together on promoting open access. “When my colleague, Ray English, at Oberlin, proposed a letter from liberal arts college presidents, I just asked Al Bloom if he would sign. We haven’t done much else in working with the administration.”

Nevertheless, she was happy at the progress that was being made, particularly in Congress. “I’m generally supportive of the open access movement, in most ways that it’s been defined,” she said. “I think it’s important for faculty and their institutions to retain ownership of information and not cede rights to publishers. I’m certainly happy this is on the congressional agenda. For too long, libraries have had to lead the effort to reform scholarly communication on our own.”

Burke said that the support for open access makes sense for most faculty who publish their research. “What you accrue [through your publishing] is reputation capital, all of which helps you,” he said. “What are the conditions of circulation that will help you? As much circulation as possible.”

He also expressed hope that the administration would continue its efforts in pushing for a higher degree of open access research. “I know there’s a lot of interest and discussion between college presidents and college provosts, and the leaders understand that open access is a no-brainer that helps financially and ethically. It’s a win-win situation.”

Vice President Eldridge agreed with Burke’s viewpoint about the advantages of open access. “I suspect that open access would not change fundamentally the way that faculty and students conduct their research so much as enhance and perhaps even streamline the process,” he said.

« RETURN TO NEWS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »