Open Access: The Next Battle for Public Knowledge

“Writing indeed, which brings in gold for us, should be respected and held to be nobler than all goods, unless she has suffered degradation in the brothel of the printing presses.”

– Fillipo de Strata, 1474

Earlier this year I attend a public lecture in which the speaker quoted the above sentiment expressed by Fillip de Strata in his 1474 poem: “Polemic Against Printing.” De Strata, a Benedictine monk and scribe, opposed the unregulated power of the printing press and called on the Venetian high magistrate to restrict the trade of printing and the transmission of printed books.

If de Strata believed that the printing press was a tool capable of corrupting the purity of readers then I am certain that he is rolling over in his grave every time a nonsense tweet is thoughtlessly typed up for the masses.

Regardless, in the modern age, de Strata’s criticisms come across as archaic. That is, until you consider the modern battles for knowledge that are being waged in the here and now. Just as there were those in the past who fought against the printing press, so too are there groups now that continue to fight for regulation and restricted access to knowledge and knowledge production. Seemingly in contradiction to the very spirits of these barrier-breaking technologies that operate alongside what many refer to as the ‘right to knowledge.’ Historically, there have always been people that opposed increased public knowledge – and typically, these people are the elites that benefit most from restricted access.

Yesterday’s battle was the printing press; today’s is Open Access (OA). OA refers to literature and materials that are digital, online, and free of both price and most copyright barriers. More broadly, the OA Movement describes the collection of groups and individuals who together pursue the deregulation of knowledge, and particularly, academic scholarship.

There are two sides to this complex topic, and examining each perspective in the debate demonstrates how OA is the modern battleground for public knowledge. (Source: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access)

Open Access Movement

Rooted in the OA Movement is the notion that knowledge is a “public good.” Which, in economic terms, means that it is non-rivalrous and non-excludable – everyone can use it, and use does not diminish its value. Supporters of OA oppose the commodification of knowledge, and the restriction of scholarly works to those with the means to access it.

The OA Movement also includes a moral aspect within its mandate, as some advocates have argued that OA is connected to the belief that all humans have the inherent “right to know.” This notion is articulated in John Willinsky’s book, The Access Principle, in which he groups the public’s right to knowledge alongside other fundamental rights, such as: justice, liberty, life, education, equality, or respect.

Various models have been put forward for potential OA infrastructures. One of the earliest methods was suggested by the Budapest Open Access Initiative in 2003. They called on academics to place their articles in open electronic archives and further lobbied in favour of increasing the number of OA journals that obtain operating funds through means other than charging the reader access.

Ultimately, the OA Movement seeks to democratize knowledge by making it widely available and stripping away conventional barriers to access. However, this would disrupt traditional avenues of publishing, which is where critics voice their concerns.

The Regulation of Knowledge

In recent years, academics have criticized the increasing control over the trade of academic publishing and associated increases in journal subscription prices. A 2015 study from the Université de Montréal found that 50% of all academic papers published in 2013 were done through the top five publishers. Thus revealing how the industry is dominated by oligopoly.

Meanwhile, philosopher of OA knowledge Peter Suber has chronicled the steady increases in the costs of journal subscriptions beyond the point of affordability. These events have led to increased support for the OA Movement and studies on the phenomenon. Nevertheless, critics of OA have raised concerns over the viability and integrity of making scholarly materials publically available online.

With the understanding that the debate over OA involves various critiques from both sides, one of the key criticisms of the Movement is its sustainability. The OA Movement supports making scholarly literature available to readers online without a cost. However, the dissemination of knowledge comes with costs attached, and publishers are able to recoup these costs by charging for journal subscriptions and access.

In response to this critique, the OA Movement has been keen to point out that experiments have shown how the overall costs associated with publishing would actually be reduced by making scholarly materials publically available. In fact, independent studies in the US, UK, and Australia each concluded that OA would not only bring significant social returns but also pay for itself through increased economic benefits. (Source: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access)

A second major criticism of OA focuses on its impact to quality academic work. Some critics argue that OA lends itself to researchers looking to make their work visible at the expense of quality. However, the peer-review process still lends itself to OA journals just as it does to traditional ones since it is generally the case that regardless of the publication type reviewers are not paid for their services. Similarly, with both OA and traditional journals quality depends on the specific publication and both types of publications can be viewed on a spectrum from high quality to low quality.

Supporting the Right to Knowledge

The debate over OA goes much deeper than the brief summary delivered in this article. However, it is an important discussion as it deals with the democratization of knowledge.

Public knowledge, particularly in the Global North, has evolved so far from the printing press. It has grown to include universal public education, telecommunications, and Internet platforms. Should knowledge only be available to those with the means to access it? Or should any person, regardless of their status, be given the opportunity to learn and to know?