Plan S has injected a much-needed sense of urgency to the debate about transformation to full and immediate open access, but what are we missing in our focus on the minutiae of compliance? How do we ensure that implementation ensures a more equitable system for all?
Read-and-publish? Publish-and-read? A primer on transformative agreements by @lisalibrarian.
History as a discipline has a history of responding to Open Access Initiatives. What can we learn from this history of history that could push faster, farther toward collaboratively designed and implemented OA?
Plan S implementation guidance has not provided reassurance to anxious society publishers
Mixing subscription content and open access content in hybrid journals has done little to accelerate the flip from subscription to OA. Angela Cochran explores the creation of mirror journals to comply with new OA mandates and supply a more sustainable model for moving toward OA.
In yesterday’s “Ask the Community (and Chefs)” post, librarians and people involved in various ways in journal publishing shared their thoughts about how to increase equity in open research. Today’s responses provide researcher perspectives and reflections on the wider enabling landscape for open access and open research.
A look back at ten years of open access posts and ten years of progress on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Thus the defining property of traditional publishing is editorial selection. That is what publishing is about.
Libraries and legacy publishers are in an unholy embrace. They need not love each other to feel they should stick together.
Green OA has not had a significant effect on subscriptions. What does — and doesn’t — that mean for subscriptions in the future?
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
Fifteen years after the term was coined, we still don’t have a single agreed-upon definition of Open Access (OA). What are the implications of this diversity of views within the OA movement, and how much does it really matter?
We are often called upon to discuss open access to society publishers. This is what we tell them.
“Sound methodology” suggests an ideal match to a scientific question that never quite exists. So why do some publishers use it?
Are the APC levels set for high-end OA journals too low to be sustainable? Are there other ways that might help high-end OA journals pay their way?