A survey of multiple scientific and academic domains about open access publishing provides an interesting snapshot, but fails to provide much actionable data as it conflates too many areas into one.
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach.
The CC-BY license is assumed to be an open access standard, but the situation is complex — for funders, authors, universities, and publishers of all types. Perhaps a less dogmatic approach would serve all parties better.
By labeling activities that make things affordable and alleviate pressures throughout the system, those who argue against “double-dipping” are not only making things less affordable, but putting forth double-standards.
A fundamental confusion between articles and data leads to a call for more CC licenses and less copyright. But why are data being closed down while articles are being opened up? Is there a fundamental misunderstanding of copyright, licensing, and rights?