An open letter to the SASP: Opening up access to the journal

Dear SASP

I’m a young(-ish) and relatively inexperienced author who lately has had a few concerns about the direction of the South African Journal of Physiotherapy (SAJP). I’m proud of the high quality research that is being conducted in the field of rehabilitation and health sciences in South Africa, and like every other academic, researcher and author, I’m trying to make a useful contribution to the field. My concern however, is that most (if not all) of the wonderful research that’s done in this country will never be seen by anyone who is not a member of the South African Society of Physiotherapy.

After thinking about some of these issues, I thought I’d take this opportunity to write to you, in the hope that you might consider some of the benefits of moving the SAJP towards an open access model of publication. I’m sure you’re aware of the disruption taking place in the publishing industry at the moment, with content creators using what are effectively free services to bypass the traditional publication process entirely. Consider the following statement:

“Scientific publishers should be terrified that some of the world’s best scientists, people at or near their research peak, people whose time is at a premium, are spending hundreds of hours each year creating original research content for their blogs, content that in many cases would be difficult or impossible to publish in a conventional journal. What we’re seeing here is a spectacular expansion in the range of the blog medium. By comparison, the journals are standing still.” Nielson, M. (2004)

The warning signs of disruption in an industry can be seen when there is a sudden proliferation of entities offering similar services that fulfill a customer’s need. With that in mind, consider that in the last few years there has been a significant increase in the number of new journals that are open access (BioMed Central, PLoS Medicine), or established journals that are moving towards an open model of publication (Pubmed Central, British Medical Journal, Physiotherapy Canada). These and many other high profile academic journals have recognised the importance of making peer-reviewed research available for everyone in the world, and taken the step towards making it a reality. They recognise that knowledge is essentially useless unless it can be accessed by anyone who wants it, and they accept their social and educational responsibility to advance new and important ideas in a world that is desperately in need of answers to desperate problems.

Opening access to scientific research is in everyone’s best interest, as the journal increases it’s readership, authors increase their citations, and anyone interested in that particular paper gets to read it. If the role of the academic journal is to register, certify, disseminate and preserve ideas, open access seems to be the most efficient way to achieve these goals. Indeed, providing the results of research to anyone with an internet connection must be the best way to make sure that the ideas published in scientific papers are original, disseminated widely and preserved. If publishers don’t seize the opportunity to benefit from a move towards openness, they may find authors increasingly self-archiving their works, leaving traditional publishers out of the loop entirely. These tools are available, free to use and provide researchers with an alternative that would see their work being spread far more widely than if it were stuck behind a paywall.

Researchers have the most to gain by the open access movement, and may soon question the usefulness of a gated system that severely limits the reach of their scientific contributions. Any author will tell you that what they want most of all is for more people to read and cite their work. With most papers essentially invisible to most researchers, how is the status quo benefiting authors? If publishers don’t begin moving towards opening up access, they may find themselves without any relevant content, as scholars establish open repositories in which to deposit the final, peer-reviewed drafts of their work. The University of the Western Cape has recently created a Research Repository, and other institutions will surely follow, perhaps making use of the Open Archive Initiative to ensure cross-institution / international compatibility. The time is approaching when authors will ask why they should pay for access to knowledge when the cost of self-publication is essentially zero (and the cost of purchasing articles is enormous)?

On the periphery of the publication problem, there are also calls for copyright law as it relates to academic publication be revised, and that this “rebellion” should be led by academics in higher education. In addition, some have argued that the entire system of scientific publication is broken, with powerful academic journals and publishers actually hindering the progress of science. In the end though, innovation will happen, with or without the participation of academic journal publishers, and opening up access to peer-reviewed research could be the first step. Creative Commons licensing provides authors and publishers with less restrictive options with which to release content, and is increasingly being embraced by the academic community.

I see this disruption of the publication industry as an opportunity for the SASP to lead the way forward as an example for other academic journals, both locally and internationally. You have the chance to be among the first to offer the collective knowledge of South African physiotherapists to the world, and play an important part in the development and upliftment of our shared communities of practice.

I hope that the ideas outlined in this letter provide enough background for you to consider opening up access to the SAJP. I look forward to your response.

Kind regards,
Michael Rowe

PS. See the following links for additional information on the topic:

6 thoughts on “An open letter to the SASP: Opening up access to the journal”

  1. Dear Michael

    I think you hit the nail on the head. The obly reason people join the sasp is for the malpractice insurance. I will stick my neck out and say that if the insurance was available seperately, majority would opt not to buy the journal. In any case many other professions like dentists for example dont charge for the journal.

    Sounds like some are trying to cling to an income stream and cant let go?…..These subscriptions to the SASP are ridiculous…..At least you get a handy ten page journal with your membership….;-)

  2. Hi Allison. I agree with you that society members would probably continue paying for membership, although I don’t know if it’d be for the reason you suggest. Their membership includes professional insurance against malpractice, which seems to be the main reason that many of them join the society (most society members are private practitioners who would need the insurance).

    I believe that the journal is more of a bonus of membership, which makes me think that if the journal were given to every physio in the country (and further) for free, most would continue paying for membership to the society, since it’s the insurance they want, and not necessarily the journal. I like your idea of taking a poll. I think that I’ll look into it. With any luck, most members will at worst say that they don’t mind if the journal is open access, and at best say they’d prefer it.

    Thanks for your comment and suggestions.

  3. Thanks for putting the word out to the journal, Michael.

    Maybe I”m naive, but I’m wondering whether the society members would not continue to keep paying for the journal knowing that they are supporting the very important research channel for their society specifically BECAUSE they want it to be open access and hence more visible to the world. In other words, it may be that the enhanced visibility and building the prestige of their society as a knowledge source for all is AS or MORE IMPORTANT than receiving the journal as a perk of membership. Would it be worth taking a poll?

    Similarly, Megan, it is specifically BECAUSE we are not an industrialised society that open access is important for SA and its neighbours.

    Not being a member I can’t judge but I’m aware that most other local society journals are not fully subsidised through membership fees. Perhaps the journal is already making use of some forms of (discreet) sponsorship/advertising?

  4. Dear Michael

    Thanks so much for a very comprehensive and well written letter. You make some very valid and valuable points.

    Unfortunately though, like most things in life, its not as easy, simple and clear cut as it would initially appear.

    The Journal is the academic mouthpiece of the SASP and is primarily created for our members and as such, it is one of the benefits, which you as a member pay for. In addition to this, the Journal is also distributed to numerous international and local (South Africa) Universities and Libraries. Furthermore, should an external request come through to Head Office for copies of the journal or specific articles, these are sent onto the individual immediately.

    As the academic mouthpiece of the SASP, the Journal Editor has always been an academic physiotherapist by profession (actually a professor), who has extensive international and local industry knowledge and who utilises not only the international journals and congresses as a benchmark for the latest literature and research which is emerging, but also the other Physiotherapy Associations, WCPT and the internet, including sites like pubmed, BMJ, various blogs and Google Scholar. An extensive amount of homework and research has been put into the presentation, format, accessibility and content of the journal to ensure that it remains at the international benchmarked standard.

    As the leading association for physiotherapists in Africa, we try to keep close tabs on what is happening outside of Africa to ensure that we keep up with the changes as and when they happen. However we need to remain cognoscente of the fact that we are a third world country and have different needs to that of first world countries such as Canada and Britain.

    Your suggestion of an open access model of publication is a fantastic idea and most certainly the way we intend to move in the future, however the general consensus in the market place in which we operate alludes to the fact that at this point, we are not quite ready for this.

    I hope that this addresses the crux of your letter – please let me know if you feel I’ve left anything out. Should you wish to discuss the matter further I am more than willing to meet with you to bash out some ideas. I really do appreciate your letter and suggestion and will most certainly keep looking into developing on your idea.

    Thank you
    Megan

Comments are closed.