In one of my previous editorials I commented on Harvard’s open access (OA) initiative (AJNR 2008; 29: 617-18). Basically, regardless of publication venue, all investigators working for that institution have to deposit a copy of their articles in a free and unrestricted site. This means that Harvard researchers, even if they have signed AJNR’s copyright agreement make their works OA through that site. For many years, this formula has been required for employees of the Military and government agencies. We at AJNR understand these policies and have adapted our copyright for those requesting it and even release ownership of articles when necessary.AJNR was several, fairly liberal OA options (AJNR 2008; 29: 1805) that contribute to make 30-50% of our contents free.
On the 18th of March another important institution, MIT, adopted a university-wide OA policy (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/03/mit-adopts-university-wide-oa-mandate.html, accessed March 23, 2009). Its entire faculty is to provide electronic copies of their articles (published after the ruling) to MIT and grant it nonexclusive, irrevocable, paid-up, worldwide license to disseminate these writings provided that they are not sold. This decision was unanimously well received; the hope is that it will increase the flow of ideas.
OA is gaining momentum as a revolt, partly against the greed of the commercial publishers and their lack of willingness to make scientific publication easily accessible. In my function as Editor in Chief I support the OA movement but as stated before I believe that complete OA is unattainable for journals such as ours who’s funding depends on membership allocations and subscriptions. The only way to attract and retain subscribers is by providing some contents that are not OA. Scientific journals that have experimented with complete OA have been forced to go back to pay or hybrid systems.
