What is special about open-access journals? What does Lessig say should be done concerning intellectual property expansion?

W: Many scientists support open-access in principle but winning jobs, grands, and tenure still requires publication in journals with established reputations. Can open-access journals, like PLoS, Biology both strap themselves into prominence?
M: All the data show that open-access journals have higher citation rates than closed-access journals. That is the reason open-access journals will succeed. There may be a prestige lack, but the value from open-access will erase that quickly. PLoS has from the start published papers of importance far more than any other start of journal, again a measure of the value of open access.
W: In September, the National Institute of Health proposed a new policy requiring all scientists who receive its funding to make their research results available to the public for free. Could it say the new policy, if adopted, could drive some journals out of business and that taxpayers will have to pay for a new open-access system. What’s your response?
M: Taxpayers are paying for the research. The question is how much researcher should have to pay to get access to the results. We believe that the costs of open access publishing will be far less overall than the existing system. The costs to everyone will, thus, be less and the spread of knowledge greater.
W: Some worried that proprietary pressures are moving upstream to a certain ownership of data and researchers themselves rather than patterns and copyrights on the final research products. Did you share this concern?
M: Absolutely. We’ve expanded intellectual property restrictions without any evidence of the good they will do, and this religion of expansion will cause substantial harm to researcher and comers.
W: What’s the best solution?
M: The best solution is that we give up religion in the context of intellectual property and rely upon evidence. No new regulation should be adopted unless the proponent can show with real evidence that the restriction will do more good than harm.