Showing results for open access
The US government’s requests for information are of great importance for the future of academia and scholarly publishing. If you’re a traditionalist who sees open access as the downfall of civilization, an advocate who thinks information must be free, or someone who falls somewhere in between, this is your chance to create the future you’re seeking.
When it comes to discussions about access, the silent majority focused on doing science is presented with real choices, not all of which square with the scorched-earth rhetoric that too often dominates.
The RCUK announces its OA plans, including a six-month embargo. Now, speculation snaps into reality, and we will see if a number of lurking unintended consequences come to pass.
Although many people claim to know what scientists want, the author’s own ongoing survey has come up with results that are at odds with most conventional wisdom. This post summarizes those findings and identifies a near-universal view held by many scientists.
While open access remains a hot topic in our industry, we may not be discussing the most difficult aspects. Worse, OA proponents themselves may not be answering some of the questions that are now arising as a broader swath of academics, scientists, and administrators become aware of OA.
The UK government’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee issued a report this week that offers a harsh rebuke to the RCUK’s proposed plans to drive the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing in scholarly journals.
The Journal of Cultural Anthropology is now becoming open access. This points to one path a professional society can follow if it cannot derive significant income from library sales or if its membership is more interested in wider dissemination of material than the uses income from journals can be put to.
Revisiting Joe Esposito’s post on the real world concerns of the research community. Although many people claim to know what scientists want, the author’s own ongoing survey has come up with results that are at odds with most conventional wisdom. This post summarizes those findings and identifies a near-universal view held by many scientists.
Open access publishing has gone through a number of stages. Though different people will classify these stages in diverse ways, one way to view this is to say that since the initial period of advocacy for open access, commercial interests have entered this market and are now prepared to augment their positions by leveraging their elite brands, using them, as it were, to draw manuscripts for a family of cascading products.
A range of open access (OA) monograph experiments and studies are upon us, or are about to be, and it’s worth taking a look at what we know now and what we can expect to know in the next year […]
Open data is gaining ground, but is there a revenue stream that would help journals recover the costs of gathering, reviewing and publishing data?
Annotation is increasingly being recognized as a valuable tool in scholarly communications, enabling increased engagement and collaboration and better metrics, and helping improve the quality of scholarly outputs. In this guest post, Heather Staines (Director of Business Development – Hypothes.is) and Alexander Naydenov (Head of Marketing and Co-Founder – Paperhive) tell us why!
The executive director of OhioLINK shares that consortium’s experience instituting a statewide “inclusive access” textbook program–and with the criticism that has come their way as a result. (Part 1 of 2.)
Information access has an important role to play in tackling inequity in the global research and knowledge systems. But subscriptions to Northern journals are only part of the story for improving research equity in low- and middle-income-countries.
This guest post about training and other resources for open research is authored by Fiona Murphy, Nicky Agate, Amy Price, and Stephanie Hagstrom, members of the Steering Committee for Force 11 Scholarly Communications Institute.