Sage Open: Open Access Publishing Comes to the Social Sciences, Humanities
Is there demand for open access journals in the social sciences and humanities? Or does Sage see opportunities in unspent equity funds?
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?
If openness is an ideological tenant of science, why are scientists so secretive?
BMJ Open is marketed as high-volume journal of rejects. Did BMJ miss on marketing or is this the future of open access publishing?
Can social reputation metrics provide a meaningful incentive for researcher participation in peer-review and online commentary?
The OA financial model has morphed, and will continue to do so. The same realities will reveal the manufacturing biases of the initial model, and require new funding choices — just like it will for traditional publishers.
After one year, most COPE funds remain unspent. Is it time to revise the policy?
Outdated and arbitrary e-filing policies create lengthy access embargoes to university research.
The Research Information Network’s new report on researchers and Web 2.0 offers a similar set of results to previous studies: uptake is relatively low, and the trustworthiness and quality of online resources are suspect. The report offers contrary evidence to common myths about “digital natives” and some useful advice for anyone looking to build social media.
Using POD (print on demand) as a means to support open access is not a viable business model.
Experimentation and choice are key to finding long-term sustainability.
The willingness of industry to sponsor open access articles may bias your access to reliable health information.
The Public Library of Science was once a radical force, but is now dependent on author-pays bulk-publishing for its livelihood, which introduces all sorts of problems for every journal publisher. What went wrong?
At 99 cents, this may be the real “killer app” for open access publishing.