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?
One month since Science Magazine published its exposé on the lack of peer-review in, and deceptive business practices of, many open access journals, investigative reporter, John Bohannon, responds to critics.
Two separate but coincidental stances toward money and OA show that when it comes to getting things done, there’s nothing quite as useful as the right incentive — even when it turns OA principles on their head.
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?
Journal authors have more rights than they. Why is this disjoint dangerous and what can publishers do?