The argument here is that open access may have removed the barriers to access to scholarly publications, it never solved the core problem, which was to make the work relevant to the people who pay for it, specifically, the general public. "Today, even though more research is openly available than ever before, public trust in science is not at an all-time high. That should be instructive. Access was the form, but making research matter to the people who funded it was a function to which publishing was never fully committed." Ergo, "publishers should treat public-facing correction, plain-language explanation, and policy communication as core editorial functions, not optional extras." In other words, they should rebrand. Which is fair enough, but many academics don't see this as an objective and all, and even if they did, this is only one aspect of what it would take to make academia relevant to the community.
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
