We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
  4. If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
  5. The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.
For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

Many researchers opposed to online open-access journals base their argument on a fear that the advantages of traditional journals — from peer review to copyright protection —  will be lost.

In this article, Peter Suber of the Philosophy Department of Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, United States, shows that this is by no means inevitable. He discusses eight major concerns.

Regarding peer review, Suber cites PubMed Central, the Public Library of Science and other major players as advocating free access, not a loss of quality control. He shows that a loss in professional quality won’t happen, as scientists of great calibre are already working for open-access journals. And he makes a compelling case for the other concerns, from the preservation of articles, to prestige and profit margins.

Link to article in the Journal of Biology