This week I explored the notion of open access, allowing content to be viewed freely without subscription costs. When reflecting on the support of open access personally, I found that for students such as myself, the ability to easily access a plethora of research without payment is hugely beneficial to academic research. This theme was highlighted repeatedly in the blog posts of my peers also.
In my post I also highlighted that the reason that some content producers avoid open access is because they may perceive their work to be less credible under these terms. This was a point opposed by Rebecca in her blog, however, who suggested that open access posts may be viewed as highly respectable. When questioning Rebecca about the differences between our posts, she suggested that as open access becomes more widespread, the perception of pay wall credibility will decline and open access will flourish even more.
When reviewing Philips blog, he stated that some companies offer a voluntary payment service that allows content to be paid for at the user’s discretion. Initially this appeared a positive middle ground for the open access/ paywall debate, but I wondered if it was sustainable as it offered a choice for payment. Philip assured, me however, that voluntary services such as “patreon” are sustainable because content users will give generously to causes they are passionate about.
Finally, Cherie commented on my blog, suggesting my views on the use of “creative commons” as a flexible opportunity for content producers to reserve some content rights. When researching creative commons, I discovered it to be a reciprocally beneficial process to both content producer and viewer that expands the public domain while also allowing for the selectivity of rights for creators. This is a process I certainly feel will progress in the future and could resolve open access issues.
Word count: 306
Image reference: self-made using Piktochart