Wrong Advice On Open Access: History Repeating Itself

Connotea Imports 2012-07-31

Summary:

In the year 2000, 34,000 biological researchers worldwide signed a boycott threat to stop publishing in and refereeing for their journals if those journals did not provide (what we would now call) Open Access (OA) to their articles. Their boycott threat was ignored by the publishers of the journals, of course, because it was obvious to them if not to the researchers that the researchers had no viable alternative. And of course the researchers did not make good on their boycott threat when their journals failed to comply... There is a solution (and researchers themselves have already revealed exactly what it was when they were surveyed). That solution is not more petitions and more waiting for publishers or journals to change their policies or their economics. It is for researchers' institutions and funders to mandate that their researchers provide OA to their own refereed research by depositing their final, peer-reviewed drafts in OA repositories as soon as they are accepted for publication, to make them freely accessible online to all would-be users webwide, rather than just to those whose institutions can afford to subscribe to the journals in which they were published.

Link:

http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/641-Wrong-Advice-On-Open-Access-History-Repeating-Itself.html

Updated:

10/18/2010, 05:30

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » Connotea Imports
Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » Amsciforum

Tags:

oa.new oa.comment publishing oa.repositories oa.mandates petitions boycotts public library of science harold varmus oa.strategies oa.policies oa.plos

Authors:

stevanharnad

Date tagged:

07/31/2012, 21:43

Date published:

10/21/2009, 08:46