Even when a paper is retracted, free copies of articles still persist in institutional repositories and public websites. Authority for the accuracy of scientific record must keep pace with open access. Fortunately there is a solution.
Promises of more citations if authors pay are problematic in more ways than one.
The New York Times is likely to introduce institutional pricing now that it is beginning to charge for consumer access.
How did “scholarly communication” become equated with open access advocacy? Is its misuse ultimately self-defeating?
A study by two respected economists suggests it may be time to admit that we made a mistake attributing a citation advantage to open access articles.
Full of experimental biases and important omissions, what can be learned from the Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) survey of scientists?
As new business models emerge and funding sources change, can professional societies and not-for-profits respond? Or will they keep their heads buried in the sand?
When Nature goes head-to-head with PLoS, will non-profit society publishers take the hit?
With the economic benefits of open access open to reinterpretation, will the moral benefits prove sufficient to withstand the coming scrutiny? And will it all begin a race to the bottom?
It’s time to abandon the library-as-victim narrative and write a new story.
Should institutional open access repositories be run like journals?
If submission fees result in a more sustainable business model, why are open access publishers opposed to the idea?
Is there demand for open access journals in the social sciences and humanities? Or does Sage see opportunities in unspent equity funds?
Despite hand-wringing about the Times UK’s paywall, the numbers show that revenues may have justified the move.
Have the results of the open access book experiment already been written?