Tag Archives: oa

Nearly all the spokespeople and committee members I’ve seen in the press (the library trade press aside) about e-textbook pilot projects come from academic-affairs offices or campus IT, and that worries me.

Preventing the Second Big Deal | Peer to Peer Review

The same is true of the MOOC phenomenon. We need to get librarians in these conversations, and open access in these conversations, before it’s too late.

If you want to be in the business of printing truth, the best license to choose for your business is the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). For now. And if you’re printing science, medicine, technology or even philosophy, I really hope you want to print truth.

Eric Hellman (aka @gluejar) with a nice analogy between printing money and “printing truth,” and the sources of authority for each.

Today we’re no longer at the beginning of this worldwide campaign, and not yet at the end. We’re solidly in the middle, and draw upon a decade of experience in order to make new recommendations for the next ten years.

Check out the latest set of recommendations from the folks that brought us the Budapest Open Access Initiative.

This analysis suggests that Gold OA could account for 50 percent of the scholarly journal articles sometime between 2017 and 2021, and 90 percent of articles as soon as 2020 and more conservatively by 2025.

From your mouth to the faculty’s ears! A new paper from College and Research LibrariesThe Inevitability of Open Access.

A centralised access control system is simply not fit for purpose in a networked world. As demand scales, people making legitimate requests for access will have the effect of a distributed denial of service attack. The clue is in the name; the demand is distributed. If the access control mechanisms are manual, human and centralised, they will fail. But if that’s what it takes to get subscription publishers to wake up to the fact that the networked world is different then so be it.

Cameron Neylon on why publishers “Just. Don’t. Get. It…” when it comes to text mining and the flexible forms of access that modern scholars need.

What if some publishers find it unacceptable for the public to have access? They may opt out. …If publishers believe for any reason that the NIH policy creates costs or risks that exceed the benefits, then they may refuse to publish NIH-funded authors. The same will be true under FRPAA. Neither policy affects a publisher’s fundamental right to refuse to publish any work for any reason.

What is crucial to understand is that academic publishing is not a free market. Researchers send papers to journals for free, because their jobs depend on it. Senior scientists don’t charge journals to review potential articles, thereby helping the editors to identify the best work, because that is a part of being an academic. Libraries have to subscribe, because the researchers they serve cannot work without access to the scholarly record. Academic publishers thus have a captive work force and a captive audience.

From the same amazing Boston Globe piece, the quickest and clearest summary of academic publishing’s dysfunction I’ve ever seen. It is VITALLY IMPORTANT that everyone in the ecosystem understand these basic facts.