They said:
“if you publish
in an open forum
your paper’d be rubbish
and clearly hokum”
“pub’s commercial know
how to review with the peerage,
how to make data flow
and hurdles clearage”
“limited space on the page
with every new edition
so few make the passage,
it’s editorial selection!”
“we have always done
and it’s never been changed
the readers we dunn
and the paper’s in chains”
“what is ought to be
why change it now
it is so plain to see
must limit the flow”
But in, PLoS chimed,
and challenged that dragon
everyone joined
and the boycott was on
“The authors we’ll dunn
when funding provides
we’ll have much more fun
when all readers can chide”
“the new Open Access
to everyone’s work
can be the new praxis
and everyone’s perk”
“with the previous method
the work was all gratis
publishers prod
to maintain their status”
“the cash it did flow
to the publishers coffers
we were covered with snow
from ingenuous offers”
“It’s all in the model
be it business or open
pub’s whine and they yodel
but their way is broken”
“Open Access is true
for me and for you
the pub’s they be blue
but it’s now, and it’s new”
“they can keep their closed access
and journals galore
but we’ve a new process
that we’ll use ever more. “
*
Open access matters to me because it is one of the pillars of the new world of the 21st century. It is the democratization of information. I’ve been aware of Open Access since before it existed, as I’ve always thought this is how it should be done. Research should be provided in an Open Access format (with no or only very minimal delays) because we expect society to support, through government, private funding, and free-riding on corporate profits, this research. It is not our research. To support Open Access, I blog about it, and my next paper will be submitted to an Open Access journal.
Gotta go …. need to work on paper…