Re: https://www.hifa.org/dgroups-rss/recording-now-available-beyond-ivory-to...
It was interesting to watch the recording of this webinar.
The panellists were all clearly open access advocates and it was interesting that they selected very different aspects of open access than we did in our recent HIFA discussion.
While the HIFA discussion acknowledged the advantages of open access, we also lamented the high price of author processing charges. APCs were not mentioned at all in the recording (I may well have missed it as I skipped through). Nor were predatory journals or discussion about the increase in low-quality papers enabled by open access.
The main message coming through to me was that OA is inherently a good thing and that there is a need to 'redesign the evidence ecosystem' (rather than, as I would argue, to strengthen it).
OA was also hailed as the answer to the often repeated statistic that medical research takes 17 years to get into practice. In keeping with this assertion, it was ironic to find that the most recent paper on the topic is behind a paywall, and therefore inaccessible to most of us. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2803716
Another paper (free access) on the subject argues that 'incorporating references to the 17-year gap in articles and presentations, rather than illuminating the need for IS, actually obscures the present state of the field and the challenges of cocreating and sustaining change in complex systems' https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/health-services/articles/10.3389/fr... 'The article cited in support of this time frame is now 25 years old and reflects a world that no longer exists.'
Moreover, does open access accelerate the translation of research into practice? When OA is a feature, does the time lag reduce to 15 years, or 10?
I put this question into google and the first paper I saw concluded: 'The evidence that open-access publishing is an effective strategy to facilitate the translation of research into policy and practice is largely anecdotal or inferred from intermediate outcomes.' https://www.mdpi.com/2304-6775/4/1/2#:~:text=Conclusion%2DThe%20evidence... That paper is now almost 10 years old. It would be good to have more recent analysis.
I couldn't find a paper that demonstrates that open access accelerates the translation of research into practice. So I put the question to ChatGPT, which concluded: 'Open access expands the visibility and reach of research, creating more favorable conditions for its translation into practice. However, open access alone does not guarantee implementation. Translation depends on complementary mechanisms, including knowledge synthesis, professional training, regulatory alignment, and institutional incentives.'
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