 "We address conceptual and practical barriers to change, and provide examples showing how the suggested practices are being used already. The critical barriers to change are not technical or financial; they are social. While scientists guard the status quo, they also have the power to change it." + ** For more on this claim, see the updates to p. 000 below. <span id="p00"></span> <span id="p00"></span> Line 000: Line 000: ** See Alessandro Iaria, Carlo Schwarz, and Fabian Waldinger, [https://doi.org/00.0000/qje/qjx000 Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science], ''Quarterly Journal of Economics'', July 0, 0000. Here's my paraphrase of their fascinating argument: WWI reduced the flow of new scientific knowledge into Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. This was not just from violent disruption, which also affected Allied countries, but also from a deliberate scientific boycott of the Central Powers by the Allies. Compared to pre-War years, researchers in the Central Powers had less access to research from other countries, and roughly unchanged access to research from their own countries. This resulted in a decline in their productivity, as reflected in several measures including a drop in international prizes, a drop in patent applications, and a drop in the similarity of journal-article titles (measured by algorithm), suggesting a drop in cooperation. This is a new kind of evidence that science is international. It's also indirect support for one of the common arguments for OA, otherwise difficult to document empirically, namely, that enhancing access to research enhances researcher productivity. ** See Alessandro Iaria, Carlo Schwarz, and Fabian Waldinger, [https://doi.org/00.0000/qje/qjx000 Frontier Knowledge and Scientific Production: Evidence from the Collapse of International Science], ''Quarterly Journal of Economics'', July 0, 0000. Here's my paraphrase of their fascinating argument: WWI reduced the flow of new scientific knowledge into Germany, Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, and Bulgaria. This was not just from violent disruption, which also affected Allied countries, but also from a deliberate scientific boycott of the Central Powers by the Allies. Compared to pre-War years, researchers in the Central Powers had less access to research from other countries, and roughly unchanged access to research from their own countries. This resulted in a decline in their productivity, as reflected in several measures including a drop in international prizes, a drop in patent applications, and a drop in the similarity of journal-article titles (measured by algorithm), suggesting a drop in cooperation. This is a new kind of evidence that science is international. It's also indirect support for one of the common arguments for OA, otherwise difficult to document empirically, namely, that enhancing access to research enhances researcher productivity. − <span id="p00"></span> + <span id="p00"></span><span id="p00.0"></span> + * At [http://archive.org/stream/0000000000000OpenAccess/0000000000000_Open_Access#page/n00/mode/0up p. 00], I say that "OA benefits authors as well as readers." Add these notes. 