Paul Jump has a new post on a recent report about alternate models of journal publishing. From the post:
The report rejects a number of alternative proposals for wider access put forward by publishers. These include offering UK-wide access licences for subscription journals, which it deems too expensive for universities, and “pay-per-view” models, which are considered unlikely to lead to substantial increases in access.
Note: OEN is indebted to the OATP project on Connotea for many of its open access stories.
George Siemens has a new post on Lawrence Lessig’s recent focus on open access. From the post:
An academic doesn’t get paid to produce an article – at least not directly. She publishes because it’s part of her work and her research. However, once published, access to her work is essentially blocked as only those libraries and universities that have purchased access can make the article available to students.
Related: a post at Discover magazine on how to access scientific papers for free.
Jennifer Howard has a new post on a recent grant given to explore the concept of open peer review. From the post:
The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation has given New York University Press and MediaCommons a $50,000 grant to take a closer look at open, or peer-to-peer (P2P), review, the press announced today.
Peter Suber has posted the April 2011 SPARC open access newsletter.
Ben Wieder has a new post reporting on a study that indicates open access does not increase citations. From the post:
Mr. Davis suggests that this may be because access is not a problem for most researchers who would cite the articles in their own work.
Also covered on the Science 2.0 blog.
Kathy Kowalenko has a new post the IEEE’s plan towards open access. From the post:
Paul Jump has published an article on green OA as “electronic buckets”. From the post:
…repositories are essentially “electronic buckets” with no quality control. He also expressed doubts that the academy would be able to successfully introduce peer review to such repositories, partly because it would be difficult to attract reviewers who had no “brand allegiance” to the repositories.
Link and commentary by Leslie Carr.
Richard Poynder has a new post on the state of open access and PLoS ONE. From the post:
Certainly PLoS ONE has proved controversial. This became evident to me last year, when a researcher drew my attention to a row that had erupted over a paper the journal had published on “wind setdown”.
Prash’s Blog has a new post on the “have” and “havenots” of science and how open access might level the field:
Oftentimes, it is observed that the laboratories with good funding tend to publish good research articles in contrast to mediocre publications by the ones who have limited or no funding. I have an intuition that publishing through open access would bridge these two things.