5 questions to explore the rhetoric about #OpenAccess | Cristobal Cobo

abernard102@gmail.com 2014-11-13

Summary:

" ... There’s no doubt that the future will be more open. Although the devil is in the details (the websites description still look somewhat wordy). Here a few questions that came after this exploration: 1. Why the APC fees described above can be up to 10x higher than the cases previously presented (see samples: PLoS ONE, PeerJ, Co-Action Publishing or F1000Research)? 2. As suggested by Suber (see note), humanities journals are more expensive than STM (the earliest have a higher rejection rate) and their embargos are longer. How to move toward an OA model that address that STEM and art and humanities, acknowledging that they have very different funding realities? 3. Shouldn’t exist major flexibility also in the definition of the embargo period? 4. What about allowing the authors to go for more flexible licences such as CC0? 5. If the gold OA is increasingly acknowledge as a sustainable way to promote openness, Shouldn‘t public entities claim for a more transparent accountability of publisher incomes to avoid double dip? (see: The UK Government Looks to Double Dip to Pay For its Open Access Policy) ..."

Link:

http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/cobo/?p=945

From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » abernard102@gmail.com

Tags:

oa.new oa.comment oa.taylor&francis oa.elsevier oa.springer oa.publishers oa.business_models oa.hybrid oa.gold oa.fees oa.prices oa.embargoes oa.copyright oa.licensing oa.video oa.libre oa.journals

Date tagged:

11/13/2014, 08:13

Date published:

11/13/2014, 03:13