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.
A new financial analysis of open access and two major publishers suggests that many of the trends we’re seeing aren’t about adversarial ideas and win:lose propositions, but about relatively small market adjustments and incremental changes.
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?
A blog post based on a talk purports to convince us that OA is good for not-for-profit societies. However, it accomplishes just the opposite once you get past the misinformation and misinterpretations.
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.
Dame Janet Finch admits OA will cause problems for learned societies. What does that portend, especially when viewed alongside more backlash?
Funders and governments are exerting their influence in scientific publishing through monetary and financial threats, and are willing to slow science in order to accomplish OA goals.
In this first part of a three-part series, the intrusion of governments into scientific publishing is contemplated — its causes, current state, and possible effects.
With OA gaining momentum and hybrid and full OA policies becoming more common, article-level metadata and other standard approaches are necessary to facilitate discoverability.
Open access publishing is a viable option, with gold OA gaining traction. But concerns remain, and funding is uncertain.
eLife clarifies its media policies, adopting the mask of an enlightened approach that actually makes it harder for everyone to generate much attention.
A recent attempt by SPARC and others to assess “How Open Is It?” shows how complex OA publishing is, but also fails to accurately represent the potential complexities in many areas.
The flood of OA journals and publishers continues worldwide, but the number of articles is still small in any field.
An analyst frets that Elsevier might suffer from the trends in OA publishing and its mandates. But there’s no logical or practical reason to believe this.
When we hear “disruption” invoked, we think it’s about technology and innovation. What if there are other types of disruption? What if there isn’t a market demanding change, but others demanding disruption?