Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? Are funding agencies creating a false equivalency by confusing the two? And does this confusion favor researchers in some fields over others? Revisiting a 2013 post to re-examine these questions.
A recent announcement from the UK government highlights the unanswered economic questions behind its open access policy.
The results of the most recent ALPSP publisher survey offer some surprising results.
The UK government’s Business, Innovation and Skills Committee issued a report this week that offers a harsh rebuke to the RCUK’s proposed plans to drive the adoption of Open Access (OA) publishing in scholarly journals.
Is access to the research paper really the same thing as access to the research results themselves? Are funding agencies creating a false equivalency by confusing the two? And does this confusion favor researchers in some fields over others?
Like rock and roll, Open Access is here to stay but, as with rock and roll, it doesn’t always live up to its own hype.
An analysis of publishing costs continues the theme of accountability and transparency, but perhaps focuses too much on the containers of information rather than how and why the containers are filled in the first place.
Leaked emails show the the BBC and certain university administrators have been contemplating launching a competition reality television show based on the APC allocation battles the RCUK OA policy will create.
OA mandates like the RCUK mandate seem to have aspects that actually put the burdens of OA on the academics, universities, taxpayers, and scientists they were meant to help.
After a great deal of public and political resistance, the RCUK revises its OA policy. Unfortunately, the revisions only highlight the same problems, sow more confusion, and reveal how central the issue of academic freedom is to this approach.
A new financial analysis of open access and two major publishers suggests that many of the trends we’re seeing aren’t about adversarial ideas and win:lose propositions, but about relatively small market adjustments and incremental changes.
Nature (the journal) announces unwavering support for Gold OA on the same day Nature (the company) announces a major Gold OA partnership. But Nature (the journal) doesn’t itself adopt Gold OA. Why not?
The CC-BY license is assumed to be an open access standard, but the situation is complex — for funders, authors, universities, and publishers of all types. Perhaps a less dogmatic approach would serve all parties better.
Dame Janet Finch admits OA will cause problems for learned societies. What does that portend, especially when viewed alongside more backlash?
A group of history editors in the UK publish an open letter stating they will not comply with aspects of the RCUK mandates for OA. What can we learn from this?