Reply by author to Guild on Open Access Part I: The Movement, The Issues, and The Benefits” and “Open Access Part II: The Structure, Resources, and Implications for Nurses” by Jan Nick, PhD, RNC-OB, CNE, ANEF (November 23, 2011)
Dear Ms Guild:
Thank you for your thoughtful letter in support of the Open Access (OA) movement. Your premise is true that searches reveal myriad citations, but often the resources cannot be accessed. As stated in the articles, unavailability hampers global nursing from achieving evidence-based practice, and this is not a problem only for developing countries.
My research has revealed information in highly developed countries is still localized, creating duplication and pods of nursing science without the benefit of scientific replication. For example, U.S. databases only carry a smattering of Canadian or Australian nursing journals, and libraries purchase databases that have about 42% duplication of journals (Nick, 2013).
Europe and Great Britain are pushing the OA movement forward. In July 2012, Britain’s government endorsed the Finch report, a bold initiative calling for all scientific journals to shift to Open Access (Research Information Network, 2013). The importance of OA to aid in the EBP movement is now being fully realized as emerging studies show cost effectiveness and return on investment when resources are allocated to create EBP models of practice in hospitals (IOM, 2011, p. 26; Cullen, 2013). The traditional fee-for-access model continues to create challenges for all: nurse clinicians, nurse educators, and nurse administrators. Excitedly, choosing to publish in OA journals will allow the science of nursing to grow to global proportions.
Sincerely,
Jan M Nick, PhD, RNC-OB, CNE, ANEF
