Sir Karl Popper postulates the public character of scientific methods. ” Objectivity” is not the product of individual highly self-controlled scientists, but the result of public control and criticism. Robert K. Merton distinguishes four institutional imperatives of the scientific ethos: universalism, communism, disinterestedness, and organized skepticism. Conventional “peer reviewed” paper journals are said to be the “backbone” of scientific communication. Their mainly function is the control of scientific communication. Digitalized scientific / scholarly communication has many advantages. The future of ” open access” publishing depends on several factors, among others: Are the functions of paper journals really “indispensable”? If yes: Is it possible to substitute the functions of conventional paper journals by open access publishing and communication?

The opposition to the new has not hindered any scientific innovation, why should it just be with “open access” different? Popper and Merton, and probably justified in favor of clearly “open access”. It is for research communication (preprint server) such as science communication (peer reviewed journals, refereed archival Postprints) mobility problems, but allows much better than conventional paper publications to detect plagiarism and deception and labeling as forged convicted publications.

Would we really optimal conditions for scientific and public communication, we really want to encourage criticism, open pluralistic cognitive competition, optimal diffusion of scientific theories, models, methods, findings? Then the scientific communication should not be hindered by reactionary copyright rules and other artificial barriers. On the contrary, it should be the potential of digital technologies for the promotion of public criticism, quality control through software such as Open Peer Commentary realized. Popper and Merton were still among us: you would probably open access fans. What else?

Indeed highly recommended articles for open access proponents.