Dear all,
Great discussion, thank you everyone for your inputs.
As Ginny Barbour said erlier today, our current question - how would you design a better OA system? - is critical.
What kind of system would you like to see in the future?
A few of us have proposed that funders should take responsibility for APCs. One option is to build on the system we already have, and focus on addressing the most unpopular aspect of OA - high APCs. In such a system, journals would continue to play a strong role, delivering quality definitive content for end-users. Funders would pay APCs, but these would be capped (what other measures could be used to keep APCs reasonable?). Preprints would continue to have a role, especially for rapid communications among researchers in fast-moving fields. AI would be harnessed with a view to improving quality while reducing publishing costs (and thereby reducing APCs).
There have been mentions of other approaches. For example, an increased focus on preprints (as proposed by Plan U) and subsequent publication in APC-free OA journals. How would this work in practice? What are the drivers and barriers?
How would YOU design a better OA system?
Please email your comments to: hifa@hifaforums.org
Here is the RSS feed to review previous messages: https://www.hifa.org/rss-feeds/17
Many thanks,
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