A new study from the University of California system confirms much of what we already knew about open access, particularly the increased financial burden it places on productive universities.
There’s no denying the growth and increased acceptance of the concepts of open access in scholarly publishing. But the repercussions of the business models and methodologies chosen for OA are just beginning to be recognized.
Is a flip to a Gold OA world as easy as a recent paper suggests?
In an increasingly open world, should more subscription journals be converted to OA? And if so, why, how, and when?
Adding to the discussion of APCs, eLife’s financials suggest that being competitive with some major journals means the journal is expensive to run.
It’s unclear who in the academic world has any incentive to pay for Gold OA publishing, especially as embargoes satisfy nearly everyone and cost next to nothing.
A recent announcement from the UK government highlights the unanswered economic questions behind its open access policy.
PLoS has an interesting opportunity before it to push its most robust service, PLoS ONE, very aggressively for growth. PLoS can do this by lowering the cost of publishing fees, which would make it increasingly hard for other publishers to match them for a Gold OA service. This could result in PLoS ONE becoming the default OA publishing option for all STM publishing.
A long, thoughtful essay by a UK academic contemplating open access merits attention, for obvious and subtle reasons.
The journals business has not been disrupted and does not appear likely to be disrupted for some time. Journals publishers continue to dominate the institutional market and are seeking to coopt Gold OA services.
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.
Nature (the journal) announces unwavering support for Gold OA on the same day Nature (the company) announces a major Gold OA partnership. But Nature (the journal) doesn’t itself adopt Gold OA. Why not?
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.