Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/open-access-83-introducing-q4-how-would...
Dear Indi and fellow HIFA colleagues,
Thank you for introducing Q4: How would YOU design an OA system that retains the benefits - and fixes the problems! - of the current OA system?
I am really looking forward to hearing everyone's views on this key topic.
Recognising that our discussion is specifically about one aspect of open access publishing, namely open access to peer-reviewed research, here are a few personal thoughts from me:
1. I would urge us to look at the OA system not in isolation but as an integral part of the wider global evidence ecosystem. www.hifa.org/about-hifa
The purpose of the global evidence ecosystem, and those who work within it, is to meet the information needs of health professionals, the general public, policymakers and others.
The global evidence ecosystem can be described as having six components:
1. Generate evidence
2. Publish evidence
3. Synthesise evidence
4. Repackage evidence
5. Avail evidence
6. Apply evidence.
An ideal OA system is not one that necessarily benefits researchers, nor even readers. It is one that strengthens the global evidence ecosystem as a whole. As such an ideal OA system serves to build a world where every person has access to the reliable, relevant healthcare inforamtion they need to protect their own health and the health of others. The translation of evidence into policy and practice is paramount. OA is an enabler of knowledge translation. But it has limitations.
2. From the perspective of the global evidence ecosystem, the primary users of the full text of research papers are those who synthesise evidence: systematic reviewers and clinical guideline developers. In this discussion we have heard from two systematic reviewers. Simon Lewin (Norway) notes 'I would want to see the whole evidence pipeline being open access, but I think it particularly important for evidence synthesis products to be open access as these are critical components for informing decision making'. I agree. Unni Gopinathan (also from Norway) welcomes the fact that open access reduces the problem of accessing full text to conduct a synthesis. On the other hand he points out that OA has led to an increase in lower-quality papers that makes the work of synthesis harder. Again I agree, and I would like to hear more from those who conduct systematic reviews and, especially, those who prepare clinical guidelines.
3. Health professionals (and patients and policymakers) may also, at times, need access to the full text of original primary research papers. But access to the full text of original research papers is not the main priority for the vast majority of health professionals to guide their decision-making. Single research studies are seldom sufficient to inform decision-making (for reliable evidence we need the input of component 3 - those who synthesise evidence as in systematic reviews and guidelines). Further, the full text of research papers is not in a format that is useful to most users (for this we need the input of component 4 - those who repackage evidence). After all, a research paper describes the method and findings of the study, but is not designed to make recommendations. The same can be said of systematic reviews - 'Cochrane has always emphasised that systematic reviews do not make recommendations' https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10845861/ It is the task of guideline developers to oversee the formulation of key questions, evidence retrieval and synthesis (eg systematic reviews), and appraisal of the quality of the evidence, and on the basis of these to make recommendations.
4. I value highly the contribution of journals in the global evidence ecosystem. They represent component 2 - Publish evidence - one of the six pillars of the ecosystem. They serve to make a preliminary assessment of the quality and reliability of a research manuscript; to copy-edit and proofread the paper through its stages; to manage the peer-review process; and finally to format and deliver the final definitive paper in a way that best meets the needs of readers.
5. In our discussion so far, two of us (Indi and I) have agreed that research funders should be respnsible for paying article processing charges (APCs).
6. I am concerned about the decision by the Gates Foundation to stop funding APCs. They say that 'By discontinuing to support Open Access fees, we can work to address inequities in current publishing models and reinvest the funds elsewhere'. Instead they are mandating researchers to publish preprints. I am not convinced by their arguments and I believe that it would be a retrograde step for funders to stop paying APCs. APCs represent a tiny fraction of the total costs of research, and the journal publishing process is an indispensable part of knowledge translation. I suggest that such action by Gates and others will lead to fragmentation of research outputs, out-of-pocket costs to researchers, weakening of the overall global evidence ecosystem, reduced effectiveness of knowledge translation and adverse health outcomes. For me, it makes much more sense for research funders to collaborate with journals rather than exclude them. Exorbitant APCs? Yes indeed, this is the case with some of the top journals, but the way forward is to negotiate, if necessary through capping of the APC budget line.
We should not accidentally throw away something important just to get rid of something we don't like.
How would YOU design an OA system that retains the benefits - and fixes the problems! - of the current OA system?
I very much look forward to hearing YOUR views. Do you agree/disagree with any of the above? Send your thoughts to: hifa@hifaforums.org.
Best wishes, Neil
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of HIFA (Healthcare Information For All), a global health community that brings all stakeholders together around the shared goal of universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA has 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting in four languages and representing all parts of the global evidence ecosystem. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK-based nonprofit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Email: neil@hifa.org