Matéria interessante na revista Nature sobre revistas de acesso aberto, com argumentos pró e contra. No fundo creio que o problema seja o mesmo dos livros e da música. Existe um questionamento de qual é o serviço oferecido por editores e gravadoras e se ele é realmente necessário. E existe o questionamento de qual o modelo de negócio mais correto/eficiente a ser usado (estudar mais marketing). Na discussão geral as duas questões se misturam de maneira confusa.
Eisen, a molecular biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, argues that scientists can get much better value by publishing in open-access journals, which make articles free for everyone to read and which recoup their costs by charging authors or funders. Among the best-known examples are journals published by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), which Eisen co-founded in 2000. “The costs of research publishing can be much lower than people think,” agrees Peter Binfield, co-founder of one of the newest open-access journals, PeerJ, and formerly a publisher at PLoS.
But publishers of subscription journals insist that such views are misguided — born of a failure to appreciate the value they add to the papers they publish, and to the research community as a whole. They say that their commercial operations are in fact quite efficient, so that if a switch to open-access publishing led scientists to drive down fees by choosing cheaper journals, it would undermine important values such as editorial quality.