Talk:Open access journal

message: This page is now the restored page for open access journals, before the recent renamings and changes. However, not all the many improvements made during the pasty few days have been incorporated. They will be. Some of the text in here duplicates the text in open access; this is temporary, and will also be corrected in the next few days. Please help by making any changes you think good, but please do not change the basic structure without consultation on this page. The entirely appropriate feelings expressed above indicate why such discussion is necessary.  its been a long job, but undoubtedly this article page and related articles will be much improved by the end of it all. . DGG 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This page

message: The rationale for moving material around was:
* The "open access" and "open access publishing" articles overlapped a great deal.  I appreciate the differences between the "open access movement" and "open access publishing" in the sense of publishing on a non-pay-for-access model.  However, it does not seem like a useful distinction to make to the point of needing two separate articles - the two articles would be largely redundant.  I was thinking "open access publishing" was a good title because it disambiguates from "OpenAccess" and other things on Open access (disambiguation), but if you want to put it under "open access" instead, because this is the adjective phrase common to both the movement and the publishing model and other things, that would be great.
* There are forms of open access publishing that have nothing to do with academic journals; the "open access" page needs to cover these in addition to academic journals, which have gotten most of the attention.  The recommended Wikipedia:Article size is no more than around 30K.  Due to the volume of material, I simply moved almost everything having to do with academic journals into open access journal.  Perhaps more needed to be left behind in the main article due to the prominence of this application.
Whether or not "self archiving" is a form of "open access" seems to be disputed, therefore Wikipedia should not take a position on it.
We should certainly not have articles titled both Open access (publishing) and open access publishing (which is currently the case) as this is too confusing.
Proponents of open access are certainly welcome to edit those articles, but should keep Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines in mind, and should remember that because of the Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, policy, Wikipedia articles cannot appear to be advocating on behalf of the open access movement. -- Beland 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: very true, nor can they appear to advocate any one segment of it. DGG 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent changes 

message: The current name is not grammatically correct, which is rather annoying and unprofessional. OptimistBen 08:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the descriptive name for such a publication is the singular, as in PLOS is a o.a. journal, not PLOS is an o.a. journals. Yes, it sounds awkward, but it conforms to the WP MOSDGG (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not grammatically correct because in this case we are not referring to a singular journal, we are referring to the journals collectively. Sorry, you're wrong. And it is PLOS is "an o.a. journal", not PLOS is "a o.a. journal". See a and an. OptimistBen 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

text: yep, you're right about a and an. -- that's a matter of grammar.   But the article on Scholary journals is Scholarly journal, not Scholarly journals and similarly throughout wikipedia,  as a matter of consistent style. Logic and grammar have nothing much to do with it. Personally, I would have chosen it the other way around, but I wasn't here when the choice was made back in the beginning. Please check Wikipedia:Naming conventions, item 1.2. There are some exceptions, but this article is in any case not about the set of oajs, but about the concept and nature of an oaj. Its should match other articles in the general subject, and they all use the singular.Consider the overall set of articles on publications before wanting to change this one. DGG (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh, guess you're right! Still sounds awkward. Thanks. OptimistBen 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename to Open Access Journals

message: There are a lot of another free journal management systems, but I think there are some financial support for OJS etc. Also it looks like that the sentences in this article is affected from this financial situation. Please add other ones like african online journals, scopemed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.77.100 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  financial situation of OA and The Other systems 

message: The structure and content of the debate section is very odd. There is a list of "imaginary" proponents that is implied to have wishes aligning with OA - a very strange way to construct an argument. The opposing arguments are not done in the same way and they so poorly written that they almost appear as straw man arguments. --Thorseth (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree, this disposition with pros and cons in form of a list makes it very difficult to expand the article or even draw conclusions. Someone came up with con arguments, which are not even evident. There is a very good paper out by BMC medicine, which compares the impact of OA journals to those of regular subscription journals. A-2 year impact factor was measured, and journals across a wide range of disciplines and business models were subjects of this study. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. I propose to rewrite the section “debate” entirely based on this recent publication. Whatever is relevant will remain, but it will be written as a discourse, with necessary conclusions. Osterluzei (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  debate 

message: Given the recurrent moving of this page from "open-access journal" to "open access journal"" and back, I have started a discussion here see update below in order to settle this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure where that discussion is, it seems to have been archived. But in keeping with other open access article titles, I believe the hyphen should be removed. -Pete (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  So do I! I think it was just one person who was very insistent on it being hyphenated. the term 'open access' just isn't hyphenated in common usage. I've removed the hyphen from the phrase in almost every other Wikipedia article where I find it mentioned and no-one else has complained. We don't want an edit war, but I think there is no ground for it being hyphenated. Lawsonstu (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *It's here. Seems like there is consensus to leave out the hyphen and move this article back to open access journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

text: *Please note that :Category:Open access archives was speedily moved to :Category:Open-access archives. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: * . See discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyphen or not? 

message: *Strongly oppose This was proposed before in 2009, and the reasons for keeping the articles separate remain the same. The Open access article is about the concept of open access, while this article (Open access journal) is about one particular route for achieving open access, namely through publishing open access journals. Self-archiving in repositories is the other most common method, and is very different and requires a different article. - Lawsonstu (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merger with open access 

message: :Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *Support or *Oppose, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
*Oppose per the above discussion. In addition (so this is not why I am opposing any more, but an additional comment), renaming would need to be done consistently and we have a bunch of articles all using "open access xxx" instead of "open-access xxx" in their title (and countless others where this is in the text). --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: I'd like to remove the dash in "open-access journal" occurring in the body of article; your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: In the body of article

message: Even without cite sources (to adopt another "taxonomic framework" for the article), using the present approach, we can enhance it...
 
There are a basic classification {"entirely open access", "delayed open access", "hybrid open access"}, and a lot of possible sub-classes for  "hybrid open access journals". 
The article's text need some organization (show structure of classes), some metrics (ex. about "delayed open access") and add some more usual classes. The metrics is necessary to characterize the "degree of open access" of "non entirely open access" journals, because many are non-representative.
Example:
* Entirely open access.
* Delayed open access:  need metrics. Is characterized by "retrospective openess time" (ex. 1 year? 70 years?) and percentual of volume (number of issues or articles) that are open in nowadays. Example: the Royal Society Journal is open access with the rule "more than 70 years ago", that is no little when we check the volume, ~60% of the retrospective journal content. 
* Hybrid content open access: many variations,
** by article's classification:
*** Journals with research articles open access
*** Journals with some research articles open access
*** .. Journals with (all) non-research articles open access
*** .. Journals with some non-research articles open access:
**** ... Journals with brief-report articles open access
**** ... Journals with editorial articles open access
**** ... Journals with book-review articles open access
** by article's part: a lot of "closed journals" are adopting this kind of openess today (!),
*** With figures and equations in open access
*** With "first pages" in open access
*** With "random sampling pages" in open access
** by article's format: as google and others are doing  with books, some are doing with journals,
*** ... with image (low quality scan) open access ...  
The intersections of "pure classes" may be listed separately, 
* Hybrid content and time open access: journals with some articles open access and the other delayed access...
* ... Journals with some (brief-report, letter and editorial) non-research articles open access
* ... Journals with figures in low quality image open access ...
--Krauss (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open access taxonomy and metrics 

message: Would it be appropriate to mention v:Wikiversity Journal, which now has two open access journals?
#v:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine
#v:Second Journal of Science
It's up to you, we have no cited references, and I am on the board of both and creator of the latter, so it would be a severe COI for me to insert these links.  On the other hand, both journals are interested in expanding the number of such journals, and using them to enhance Wikipedia.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikiversity Journal