Is the OA movement painting itself into a corner with concerns about new OA rules and regulations?
Like all OA funding models, subscribe-to-open solves some problems while creating others. Some of the downsides are pretty fundamental.
How can collective action models to support open access, like Subscribe to Open, be applied to academic publishing? An interview with Raym Crow.
Rick Anderson interviews Jeff MacKie-Mason about the University of California system’s recent break with Elsevier.
Two years after its initial entry into the marketplace, Cabell’s Blacklist has matured into a carefully crafted and highly useful directory of predatory and deceptive journals.
Transcript of a debate held at the 2019 Researcher to Reader Conference, on the resolution “Sci-Hub Does More Good Than Harm to Scholarly Communication.”
Why would a for-profit, VC funded publisher celebrate by committing itself to a full year’s worth of additional expenses with no additional revenue?
Predicted to radically consolidate STM journals, the OA megajournal has found a successful niche market. The same can be said for MOOCs.
In recent years, observers have noticed that articles for which an APC has been paid are not always made freely available. How pervasive is this problem? A Scholarly Kitchen reader investigates.
What, if anything, should be done about the fact that the Open Access movement embraces not only a variety of definitions of the term “open access,” but also a diversity of visions as to what constitutes an acceptable future for access to scholarship?
Fifteen years after the term was coined, we still don’t have a single agreed-upon definition of Open Access (OA). What are the implications of this diversity of views within the OA movement, and how much does it really matter?
Are we all talking about the same thing when we say “open access” — and do we all mean the same thing when we talk about an “open access future”? Short answers: “yes (kind of)” and “no way.”
SAGE has announced its investment in PeerJ, an Open Access publisher with an unusual business model. SAGE’s David Ross answers some questions about the thinking behind this move and some of its implications for the future.
Editors keep allowing nonsense and gibberish to be published in their journals and conference proceedings. How many exposés and sting operations will it take before scholarly publishing begins effectively to police itself?
Strange comments emerge after a post about Beall’s list of “predatory” publishers appears, many of which attribute sentiments to people falsely.