As an employee of a small business with a focus on research in the life sciences we don't have a huge budget for library subscriptions. Obviously, it is in our interest to publish our results with open access (and have others do the same).
Collaborating mostly with researchers from medical centres, I often have trouble to convince my fellow authors to choose for open access. Reasons that I can think of for them to stay "closed" are:
- Their institutions have subscriptions, so why pay again (from their own budget) for open access?
- Top journals have a 'closed policy' by default (i.e. selecting open access requires (a bit) more work).
- Related to the previous point: fully open access journals like the PLoS journals have too low impact factors.
- They simply are less interested in open science, or have less experience with it. (This may seem like bashing, but moving from physics to the (medical) life sciences I experienced a huge culture shock. The pace is much higher and the stakes seem to be too. In my experience the culture is less "open" and open science and reproducible research are only recently being put on the radar).
One positive point on the horizon: more and more public funding agencies have open access publishing as part of their requirements.
So, as the title says, which arguments can I use to (try to) convince my collaborators to choose for open access (assuming I'm not in a decision making position)?
This post has been migrated from the Open Science private beta at StackExchange (A51.SE)