The evidence fails to justify publishers’ demand for longer embargo periods on publicly-funded research.

peter.suber's bookmarks 2017-08-18


"Due to disciplinary differences in the “half-life” or relative demand of a scholarly article, some publishers are looking to enact longer embargo periods before an article can be made openly available on archives and repositories, in order to protect against profit losses. Peter Suber finds there is insubstantial evidence to suggest embargo length affects profit margin. Furthermore, the premise that public policies should maximize publisher revenue before maximizing public access to publicly-funded research is unfounded and should equally be rejected. ..."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » peter.suber's bookmarks


oa.embargoes oa.publishers oa.cancellations oa.debates

Date tagged:

08/18/2017, 11:17

Date published:

08/18/2017, 07:17