The home page for Peter Suber’s book, Open Access (MIT Press, 2012), with a growing collection of updates and supplements, and links to reviews, translations, and OA editions.
“Our ORC is Open Research Central, it is a portal through which research in any field can be submitted for formal publication on one of the open research publishing platforms that we provide for funders and institutes.
We envision Open Research Central as a portal that will ultimately free researchers from the prisons of academic journals and become the default way in all research areas to formally publish their findings. It will be underpinned by several key principles: immediate publication; open data; open, transparent post publication peer review; and fully open access to all. If we succeed we will bring about a revolution in how academic researchers share their findings. A revolution with far reaching consequences that will significantly benefit not only the way research progresses but also our society in general, so dependent on the research that the sciences, engineering and humanities produce.”
“Open access to publications is a key component of the modern research ecosystem, but the international community lacks a clear and unambiguous shared understanding of the key terminology. Several possible inputs exist that could profitably be cross referenced, gaps filled, and any conflicting meanings addressed. This activity identified an initial subset of open access terms that are currently the most problematic and, through a diverse Working Group of international subject experts, developed agreed definitions for an Open Access standard glossary in the CASRAI dictionary.
See this post for background on the Open Review. This review is open until June 30, 2017. The proposed new standard glossary terms are NOW READY for review and can be found listed here:”
“Let’s first take a brief look at the OA landscape. There are many varieties of OA journal. There is no question that Gold OA has taken root as the primary model, but is less than a perfect model, and sits alongside Green OA emerging as a flawed alternative to Gold. And then there is Diamond OA. What is Diamond OA? Essentially, Diamond OA is a form of Gold OA that does not include a requirement for authors to pay article processing charges (APCs).
In Diamond OA I am not including freely available alternative hosting arrangements, such as preprint overlay journals from Episciences, or Discrete Analysis. These are low cost operations for new journals that in my view are not definable as Diamond OA journals. The question for many societies, especially those whose profile is resolutely independent, is how to publish their journals effectively, given market pressures, and given that there is a complex and intriguing blend of business and mission that propels a society’s future. Societies are mission driven. For example my society, the American Mathematical Society’s mission is:
To further the interests of mathematical research, scholarship and education, serving the national and international community through publications, meetings, advocacy and other programs.
Society journals in many cases are important journals for the field, perhaps subject specific, or generalist journals, offering a wide range of sub-fields in the discipline. In face of the big deal, independent societies with this profile are experiencing significant subscription attrition. Societies are looking to innovate their business models, and yet do not necessarily want to burden their communities with APCs. One way to reimagine journal publishing at a society is to accept that journal publishing is in fact a program of the society, provided to the community as part of its mission. Moving journals to a Diamond OA model removes these journals from the journal subscription market, and fulfills the mission. The journals remain strong as established, branded, quality journals.”
“There’s so much good free stuff online (Khan Academy! Coursera! Caltech Authors!—the list goes on and on) that it’s easy to feel overwhelmed, perhaps even jaded by it all.
But it’s inspiring how people use these resources. I open CUNY Academic Works and look at the map and see where the downloads are coming from—Nebraska, California, and Ohio in the U.S.; Brisbane, Australia; Airai, Palau; Akershus, Norway. People are looking at papers about Italian architecture, media representations of Asian-Americans, rhetoric and violence.
I look at stories people have shared about how they have used the open access publications. There’s a nurse in an Australian aboriginal community who entertained herself in her remote location by accessing scholarship about Cormac McCarthy. There’s a high school debater in the U.S. who does her research in institutional repositories because she cannot access scholarship behind a paywall. There’s a scientist in Mexico whose investigation in climate change is aided by research shared by other scientists and offered free of charge.”
“On February 14, 2002, a small text of fewer than a thousand words quietly appeared on the Web: titled the “Budapest Open Access Initiative” (BOAI), it gave a public face to discussions between sixteen participants that had taken place on December 1 and 2, 2001 in Budapest, at the invitation of the Open Society Foundations (then known as the Open Society Institute)….Wedding the old – the scientific ethos – with the new – computers and the Internet – elicited a powerful, historically grounded synthesis that gave gravitas to the BOAI. In effect, the Budapest Initiative stated, Open Access was not the hastily cobbled up conceit of a small, marginal band of scholars and scientists dissatisfied with their communication system; instead, it asserted anew the central position of communication as the foundation of the scientific enterprise. Communication, as William D. Harvey famously posited, is the “essence of science,” and thanks to the Internet, scientific communication could be further conceived as the distributed system of human intelligence….”
“The 15th anniversary of the BOAI offers an opportunity to take stock of our collective progress. To do this, feedback was solicited through an open survey, and we received responses from 69 countries around the world. Additionally, we have convened a small working group to synthesize the community feedback and use it to reflect on the values, impact, and continued relevance of the BOAI. The Working Group will review and digest the responses received and provide updated recommendations to reflect the current status of the movement. Later this week, we’re looking forward to the release of a comprehensive reflection on where the open access movement has been and where it may be headed, written by Jean-Claude Guédon, one of the original drafters of the BOAI, and a noted thought leader in the open access community. In the meantime, watch the BOAI 15 twitter feed (@TheBOAI) and #TheBOAI starting today for a series of tweets showcasing some of the reactions collected from the wider Open community on the impact of the BOAI and on open access in general. As recommendations are formulated, these will be supplemented with more action-oriented items from members of the BOAI 15 Working Group….”
“This headline from the Chronicle of Higher Education [“Someday, Altmetrics Will No Longer Need ‘Alt’.”] is obviously true.
It reminds me of a bit of history that I don’t think I’ve recorded before. In the 2001 deliberations that led to the 2002 Budapest Open Access Initiative, we initially used the term alternative journals. At one point I suggested that we replace the term with open-access journals. The “alt” made these journals sound fringe, incendiary, immature and untested, or more focused on protest than substance. The group agreed, and we used open-access journals in the public statement.
Footnote: The BOAI is notable in part for giving equal emphasis to green and gold OA. We used the term open-access journals for the gold side. On the green side, we used the term archive, while many of us soon after switched over to repository. At least in my own case, this was a result of protests from traditional archivists who looked at these online databases and said, “Those are not archives!” True enough, in the traditional sense of the term. Although language constantly evolves to apply old terms to new things, in this case I found it easier to change archive to repository in my own writing than to fight the archivists. I’ve never heard a traditional librarian who worked with pre-OA repositories complain about the way the OA movement uses the term repository.”