Putting Your Money Where Your Mouth Is — Is Gold OA Just a New Frontier for Nature? | The Scholarly Kitchen

"Yesterday, Nature published a rather bewildering editorial in the wake of last week’s public access memorandum from the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The editorial argues that the OSTP recommendations represent a step backwards and cave to financial realities instead of courting open access (OA) idealism. The editorial also discusses accurately but blithely how Gold OA is facing travails in the UK, and seems coincident with the Nature Publishing Group announcing on the same day taking a majority position in a business venture that depends on Gold OA for its success. But more confounding is that Nature seems to believe that Gold OA is the right thing to do, but did not announce a concomitant change in its own business model, despite that being well within its span of control: As for Nature . . . for highly selective journals, fully funded gold open access is a scientific necessity. There are two fundamental problems with the editorial in Nature. First, the editorial claims Gold OA is the way to go, and then acknowledges that financial problems, implementation difficulties, legitimate concerns about rationing of funds for publication, and other problems exist, are real, and are emerging in front of our eyes. Second, if Nature truly feels this is the way to go 'for highly selective journals' and 'is a scientific necessity,' then they are missing a true leadership moment. Why not announce that Nature will go to a Gold OA model starting in April? Why not put your money where your mouth is? ..."