One month since Science Magazine published its exposé on the lack of peer-review in, and deceptive business practices of, many open access journals, investigative reporter, John Bohannon, responds to critics.
What can be learned from John Bohannon’s investigative study of open access publishers?
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? Are funding agencies creating a false equivalency by confusing the two? And does this confusion favor researchers in some fields over others?
Authors should not be surprised when their open access articles show up in surprising places. Is it possible to embrace open access with some restrictions?
PubMed Central reduces article downloads from 14 biomedical society websites when articles are made freely available after embargo.
A review of the literature shows that access conditions are getting better, not worse. So, why do we hear just the opposite?
Promises of more citations if authors pay are problematic in more ways than one.
A study by two respected economists suggests it may be time to admit that we made a mistake attributing a citation advantage to open access articles.
Stating that open access journals publish papers with “sound methodologies” promotes an unrealistic view of the scientific process and a corrupted image of the editorial and peer-review process.
A new review of the literature about open access’ effects on article citations attempts to rewrite the debate.
A new article suggests that institutional self-archiving mandates may benefit authors . . . if you ignore some inconsistent and inconvenient results.
European countries could save millions of Euros if they switched to open access publishing and self-archiving, a report suggests. But is this report based on valid assumptions?
Will $800 buy you a publication in a Bentham Science journal?
The debate over Open Access is not about science or economics but about core values and the language that embodies them.