Questions and Criticisms
Quality control aspect of journals?
The effect on journals, and its implication for scholarship, came up frequently in response to the FAS motion. This view was expressed, among other places, in a New York Times article:
"The publishing industry, as well as some scholarly groups, have opposed some forms of open access, contending that free distribution of scholarly articles would ultimately eat away at journalsâ value and wreck the existing business model. Such a development would in turn damage the quality of research, they argue, by allowing articles that have not gone through a rigorous process of peer review to be broadcast on the Internet as easily as a video clip of Britney Spearsâs latest hairdo. It would also cut into subsidies that some journals provide for educational training and professional meetings, they say."
Whatever weight this argument carries in the FAS context, it carries little relevance for the Law School context, because almost all law journals have their articles available for free already (see, e.g., the Harvard Law Review). Moreover, the vast majority of law reviews are not peer reviewed, but are instead edited by students. Therefore this criticism - and others predicated on the idea that open access will kill the journals, and do away with the benefits they provide - does not apply in the Law School context.
Effect on opportunities for up-and-coming scholars?
Two contrasting effects may be seen with new scholars. On one hand, those professors who are subject to such provisions by their university may have a harder time being published. If the opt-out provisions are seen as too cumbersome, they might discourage a journal from selecting their article in favor of one from a professor at a different University. This effect may be seen in law journals more often than it is at those the FAS policy concerned; the student-run publications may have fewer resources and more time contraints than those that are professionally published.
On the other hand, this could be a great benefit to scholars who are not yet associated with a University, or who are at a school with fewer resources. Their limited access to journals would be mitigated by this policy, and they would have an ability to research prior scholarship that better rivals their peers. When new articles stand "on the shoulders of giants" and build on prior work, this could be a great boon not only to these scholars, but to scholarship in general.
Jeopardize more obscure journals?
. . . On the other hand, the publication on the University's website of articles published through lesser-known journals might actually help them by increasing awareness of that journal.
What sort of problems would the opt-out system entail?
One difficulty would be presented if a majority of journals require professors to seek exemptions in order to release all copyright to the journals themselves. In this situation, the opt-out policy could effectively undermine the open access proposal by resulting in few articles being released under the University copyright scheme. There could also be a "tipping point" effect whereby journals realizing that most of their peers are opting out of the amended provisions follow suit. However, the converse may also be true; if a majority of journals allow the change, it might encourage more to follow suit.