The Problem at the Heart of Public Access
The intended beneficiary of public access is “the American public,” and we need so much more than access to the biomedical literature.
The intended beneficiary of public access is “the American public,” and we need so much more than access to the biomedical literature.
The Nelson Memo is being contested. Will the incumbents of the scholarly publishing world stand up for the Memo and fight for its funding?
Researchers write articles for a primary audience of peers. Open access has expanded the actual distribution. What to do about the growing mismatch?
Is the OA movement painting itself into a corner with concerns about new OA rules and regulations?
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson reflect on the OSTP’s response to their interview questions, and on some implications of those responses and of the memo itself.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson interview Dr. Alondra Nelson, acting director of the White House Office on Science & Technology Policy when the new OSTP memo was published.
Karin Wulf and Rick Anderson provide a roundup of responses to the new OSTP public access memo — and a preview of their interview with OSTP leadership.
A look back at a 2015 post about approaches to improve funder policy compliance. Many of the same problems exist now as did then — are the same collaborative solutions likely to happen?
Everyone has an opinion about the OSTP Policy memo! Come over and hear what the Chefs have to say and share your opinions with us. Part 1 of a 2 part post.
Some initial thoughts on the new OSTP memo on public access to results of federally funded research — and questions about its intent and implications.
An interview with principals of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, whose work significantly shaped the Holdren Memo on public access to federally-funded research.
An interview with principals of the Scholarly Publishing Roundtable, whose work significantly shaped the Holdren Memo on public access to federally-funded research.
Now, of course copyright owners of “free” resources have the right to set the terms of access. They can put up a datawall that demands the exchange of personal information (and thus enables data tracking, reporting, and maybe even aggregation with other datasets) for the otherwise free article. I wonder how far we will see this extend.
With greater awareness of the foibles and failings of scientific publishing, weaker self-regulation systems, and a trend toward governmental regulation of funding, is external regulation of the scientific journals system now inevitable?
The University of Florida and Elsevier have entered into a partnership to build links between the institutional repository and ScienceDirect, which has received quite a bit of criticism in recent weeks.I have found it useful to try to understand the different sides of what seems to me to be a debate about how best to utilize the increasingly mature infrastructure and programmatic capacity for scholarly communications.