Open up

Many publications (including journals, and British Psychological Society Division and Section outputs) follow a model of restricted access. Some academic journals are now offering authors the option to publish open access articles, but authors are required to incur what can be rather sizable fees. The majority of articles currently published are only available to subscribers.

There are disadvantages to this restricted access model, particularly that this inhibits the dissemination of scholarly knowledge (Harzing & Adler, 2016). When articles are not available as open-access, then the content is unavailable to most members of the public, but may also have limited impact upon practitioners. Further, university libraries often face financial challenges in maintaining their current subscriptions, let alone engaging in expansion (Willinsky & Alperin, 2011). The restricted access model may serve the purposes of publishers, whose revenue is based upon it, but does not necessarily serve the interests of others (Parker, 2013). Indeed, given that writers are seeking an audience, making their work more accessible should favour their goals. There is evidence that at least a modest increase in citations occur for work that is published under an open access model (McCabe & Snyder, 2014). I suggest that it would be beneficial for many if more British Psychological Society outputs are made open access.

Just as there are practical issues relating to access to publications, there are ethical considerations too. Open access publication may make knowledge production and dissemination more democratic (Geismar & Küchler, 2014). Parker (2013) has argued that open approaches to publishing enhance the potential to inform the public in a timely manner, improving their involvement in ethical debates within society. Students and taxpayers have asserted an ethical right to having access to knowledge, which is at least in part funded by them (Willinksy & Alperin, 2011). Research impact itself is at times a crucial ethical issue. For example, one of the barriers for putting environmental protection research into action is the issue of access, particularly in developing countries (Fuller, Lee, & Watson, 2014). Access to scholarly publications may also impede progress in mental health research in countries such as India (Srivastava, 2014). As the learned society for the profession and discipline of psychology, the BPS could contribute to society, both in the UK and elsewhere, by providing more opportunities to share knowledge with a much wider proportion of the population. As well as the practical benefits, this would also speak to the ethical imperative of using psychology to help others.

I would argue that there are benefits for the BPS, besides potentially enhancing its ability to help others. Past President of the BPS Professor Hacker Hughes, in an interview published in OP Matters, stated that it was crucial for internal barriers between groups in the BPS to be reduced (Clements & Prutton, 2016). Of course, if you are not a member of the Division of Occupational Psychology, you would have to pay to download the issue in which this interview appears. I would suggest that were this not the case, it might be easier to disseminate knowledge and commentary across the BPS Divisions and Sections. As Professor Hacker Hughes noted, there are areas of work in which multiple psychological disciplines might fruitfully contribute. For example, Forensic Psychologists may be interested in the organisation of prisons, but so may some Occupational Psychologists. Counselling and Clinical Psychologists, as well as coaches, take an interest in wellbeing, but so do many other psychologists, including Sport Psychologists. However, at present when we write for the publication outputs of Divisions, Sections, and other groups to which we belong, I suggest that there is a risk we are only speaking to ourselves. Conversely, imagine how much the research and practice collaborations that we might form if we could freely browse work appearing across the BPS publications?

One of the arguments that has been put forward against open access publishing is that it is yet uncertain whether the model is financially sustainable (Willinsky & Alperin, 2011). This may be a thornier problem for some publishers, but I suggest that it is less of an issue for BPS Division and Section outputs. Electronic copies are already produced for BPS publications such as The Psychologist, OP Matters, Clinical Psychology Forum, and so on. Electronic copies substantially reduce the cost of distribution (McCabe & Snyder, 2014). Making these electronic copies available for free therefore does not introduce any new costs for the BPS. There may be a loss of revenue for some Divisions and Sections, but I would invite the relevant committees to examine how much publications contribute to the revenue stream. As discussed above, there are benefits to increasing access, which may be worth rather more. Having engaged in informal discussions with others, my sense is that many editors of the publications may struggle to get as much material as they would like. I suggest that increasing the potential readership of publications may attract more writers. For example, OP Matters, if it were made open access, might be targeted at groups outside of the DOP, or indeed the BPS, such as Human Resources professionals, business associations, and charities. This potential for impact would, I suspect, be much more appealing to many potential writers, than speaking solely to existing members. Likewise, other publications from Divisions and Sections may have target groups who would be desirable as readers: organisations, politicians, communities (including marginalised groups) and others. 

I would also note that The Psychologist is already largely open access. Much of its content, along with all of the Research Digest, is available to anyone with an internet connection. Yet this has clearly not diminished The Psychologist as a publication. If anything, it makes The Psychologist more appealing to me as a writer. I suggest, therefore, that The Psychologist should be treated as a model of good practice for the BPS. Making our work more accessible will help us to communicate with the public and other stakeholders, and with each other, more effectively. I therefore urge the BPS to work with Divisions and Sections in order to open up the Society to those who are not members, by making publications open access.

- Andrew James Clements is a Lecturer in Organisational Psychology at the University of Bedfordshire.

References

Clements, A.J. & Prutton, K. (2016) The future of occupational psychology: An international perspective, OP Matters, 30, 6-10

Fuller, R.A., Lee, J.R., & Watson, J.E.M. (2014) Achieving open access to conservation science, Conservation Biology, 28 (6), 1550-1557

Geismar, H., & Küchler, S. (2014) On Open Access and journal futures, Journal of Material Culture, 19 (1), 3-6

Harzing, A-W. & Adler, N.J. (2016) Disseminating knowledge: From potential to reality – new open-access journals collide with convention, Academy of Management Learning & Education, 15 (1), 140-156

McCabe, M.J. & Snyder, C.M. (2014) Identifying the effect of open access on citations using a panel of science journals, Economic Inquiry, 52 (4), 1284-1300

Parker, M. (2013) The ethics of open access publishing, BMC Medical Ethics, 14, 1-4, doi: 10.1186/1472-6939-14-16

Srivastava, P. (2014) Open access publishing in psychology: An option in India? Psychological Studies, 59 (3), 321-322

Willinsky, J. & Alperin, J.P. (2011) The academic ethics of open access to research and scholarship, Ethics and Education, 6 (3), 217-223