Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

Publishing Behind Paywalls – An Academic Crisis

19 May 2022 | Story Nonkululeko Nxumalo

Should the UFS continue to subscribe to academic journals that are behind a paywall?

On 12 May 2022, the University of the Free State (UFS) held an online seminar on Open Science, posing this question.

The seminar was facilitated by Prof Corli Witthuhn, Vice-Rector: Research and Internationalisation, who was joined by the following experts: Colleen Campbell from the Max Planck Digital Library (MPDL) in Munich, Germany, where she coordinates the Open Access 2020 Initiative; Ellen Tise, Senior Director of Library and Information Services at Stellenbosch University (SU); Glen Truran, Director of the South African National Library and Information Consortium (SANLiC); and Charlie Molepo, Deputy Director at the UFS Library Service. The discussion centred around the issues of accessing and publishing academic content behind a paywall, and what open access initiatives are doing to transition scholarly work to an open access (OA) paradigm.

“Publishing academic content behind a paywall not only limits access to scholarly work, but also prevents research output from being visible and making maximum impact,” the university stated.

Paywalls vs Open Access

A paywall is a figurative wall used to limit access to certain prestigious academic content. Overcoming this wall usually means a one-time purchase option where the reader buys the content from the publisher, or it could be subscription-based where you pay a subscription fee for a fixed period. OA, on the other hand, seeks to make any scholarly work freely available to anyone interested in accessing it, including those who cannot afford the subscription fees.

"Currently, authors are required to give up copyright of their research articles to publishers. We want to move to a fully open paradigm where authors can redeem and openly license their articles so that they are free to share, use, and reuse their work so that science can move forward faster. By making it open, we gain a wider possible readership that will help improve the quality of science,” Campbell said.

Furthermore, not only are publishers making a profit from subscription fees, but they also benefit significantly from hefty publishing and author fees.

“Researchers are paying to publish their research output, and libraries are paying to access it in what is known as double-dipping by publishers, leading to what we term ‘serial crisis’. Research institutions pay twice and still do not see their research widely available to be read.”

Transformative Agreements

The panel explained the use of transformative agreements as a strategy to achieve full OA publishing. This strategy includes OA initiatives that organise investments around open research communication, demanding price transparency from publishers, as well as reorganising workflow and building up the capacity to make OA a default.

With Truran presenting statistics on OA in South Africa, he highlighted that “only 46% of South African journals are available freely, the rest are still out of reach of those who cannot afford to pay the costs associated with paywalls”. Tise touched on some negotiation principles for a transformational transition to OA. “Inclusivity and social justice must be core. Publishers must have an equity, diversity, and inclusion plan that addresses the challenges of researchers in the Global South.”

Should the UFS continue to subscribe to academic journals that are behind a paywall?

Truran answered this question by saying: “If we’re going to cancel subscriptions, then we should do it in unity and at the appropriate time. At the same time giving transformative agreements a go."

In his closing remarks, Molepo clarified the university’s stance on OA: “The UFS has taken a decision to publish all our journals in-house. We have flipped from subscription to full OA, and in the process, have seen a huge improvement in terms of citation. The impact of those journals has improved drastically from 2015 to 2021. We are content with that. The route to OA is the route this university should be taking,” he said.

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points

2004-07-29

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept