UNESCO, along with the U.S. State Department and others, launch a portal that has plenty of information, lower than usual amounts of rhetoric, but remains controversial because of how it’s positioned.
eLife asserts that professional editors create more harm than good. But how do we know that? How can we know that? Or is this just an emotional argument based on anecdote and conjecture rather than fact?
More tired OA rhetoric, this time wielding an argument that copyright approaches of some OA publishers aren’t pure enough to qualify as “real” open access. Get ready to feel the burn.
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.
We’ve lived long enough with the proposition that OA publishers compete with traditional publishers. Perhaps they do not. Some major indicators suggest a non-competitive coexistence.
Claims of speed can be used to carve out a competitive edge, especially for journals serving authors. PLoS ONE entered the market claiming fast publication times, but data show that PLoS ONE is slowing down, with times more than doubling over the past few years. Is PLoS ONE losing its speed advantage?
Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that the allegations against Swartz are proved and that he’s convicted. What would his case mean? It seems to me that it raises a number of questions that have received insufficient attention up until now.
The last few weeks of lively debate about OA in the Scholarly Kitchen have been informative, but have also involved a variety of mixed messages from all sides. There are assumptions being made that aren’t necessarily true, and arguments joined together that may in reality be at cross purposes.
Publishing materials under a trusted brand, then attempting to disavow that content when complaints arise about bias and professionalism doesn’t reflect well on the New York Times, paper or corporation. Having a portfolio of products requires responsible management of the brand constellation. Hiding out in the thicket of brands is craven.
Another open access plug piece, this time in the Gray Lady herself, but fed from London (yet again). Is there something more to all this?
Taxpayer access to US federally funded research results need not involve publishers giving away their product. An alternative mechanism is available, one that is already partially implemented. It is called the research report. Demands for free access to taxpayer funded […]
Rhetoric can’t hide financial realities. Is trading research for access a good use of funds?
A review of the literature shows that access conditions are getting better, not worse. So, why do we hear just the opposite?
While all sustainable publishing requires funding, where the funding comes from, why it’s provided, who provides it, when it’s provided, and what they expect for it sheds some light on some key issues.
A new open access journal announced with much fanfare, but with few details, no name and no business plan.