Talk:Open access publishing

message: Is Open Access more of a Movement or an Industry Strategy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.200.82.106 (talk • contribs) 06:46, 22 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: movement or industry strategy?

message: I've heard some poeple (notably someone who works for Oxford University Press) making a distinction between 'open access' (where the author pays) and 'free access' (where no-one pays). Should this distinction be incorporated into the site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.173.238 (talk • contribs) 14:29, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Wicked! Thanks for the link Omegatron. I've included this in the main article. --Username132 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Free access'

message: I removed the following text from the first paragraph.  First, open access publishing doesn't always require submission fees.  Second, this sentence doesn't fit at this point in the document.  Third, other parts of the document do cover this. Fourth, the second sentence is POV
"Open Access publishing, where the author (or a third-party acting on his/her behalf) pays to publish, has been proposed as an alternative to a subscription-based revenue model. Unfortunately, its success has been rather limited." Liblamb 18:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open access publishing revert 

message: Does Wikipedia have a policy on linking to sites which are not Open Access? In science and medicine this is sometimes necessary since these are the definitive references.  They are also usually protected by strong copyright, so abstraction will have to be careful.
Would it be a useful idea to have a flag on the link indicating that the site is not Open Access (i.e. the reader would have to pay to read it)? I have done this for Mauveine.
Petermr 12:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, Wikipedia does not have any such policy. Though easily-accessed sources are preferred for verification purposes, either in addition to more authoritative hard-to-access sources or instead of equivalent offline or closed sources. -- Beland 23:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia policy on links to Closed Access 

message: There should be some possible downsides of the open access philosophy included in the article, at the moment anyone reading it would be unaware that any arguments against full OA exist - they're alluded to at the beginning but aren't covered later on and the later paragraphs are relentlessly positive. For example, many librarians may indeed be in favour of OA, but equally many may not wish their subscription budgets to be transferred to pay for academics' submission charges. And if these charges don't exist, where does the sustainable money come from for the publishing process? Paraffinbrain 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - at the moment, this article feels rather biased Papervolcano 11:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's still biased as of November 2006. Since Wikipedia is open access, I guess it demonstrates one particular flaw: mass lunacy. Open Access says "yes" to the Dark Ages and unpaid contribution, and "no" to fair reward for great ideas and individual thought. I guess we're all supposed to do things for free in the future and live in a shack while doing research. I don't know about you, but I can't think when I'm eating two-day old pizza. Here, let's smoke a bong together and sleep in our own feces. Hooray for Open Access! --24.77.216.252 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you actually read the article? As I understand it, researchers don't get paid when people buy journals containing their work - Open Access wont affect a researcher's income (no-one is asking them to work for free). What is being asked, is that they publish with one of the many Open Access journals who then provide the work for free (traditionally, journals would keep the money for themselves). --Username132 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of Open Access 

message: I have been told that the Wikimedia chapter Germany signed the Berlin declaration. GerardM 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Berlin declaration 

message: How can individuals support open access? What can we do?
:see What you can do to promote open access --Username132 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How Can I Help? 

message: What do  the people here prefer: 
*subject repository
*subject-based repository
*discipline repository
*disciplinary repository
*discipline-based repository
one advantage of the  -based repository is that it would be parallel with
funder-based repository etc. . DGG 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like subject suppository, myself --24.77.216.252 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: prefered terminology?

message: I've heard of other colors being used for different methods of OA, like the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is supposedly free after six months.  Anyone know anything about this ? Ericblazek 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Colors

message: Shouldn't the newly added large section "Towards Understanding the Role of Open Repositories in the Information Landscape, Open Repositories Conference 2007" be either a separate artcle or integrated into the main article better? WP is not a blog. DGG 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: new section

message: Open access is the universally used term for the concept, and should not be a redirect. its where the main article should be. I think there's consensus of the editors who have been working on it--this isnt a matter of opinion, its the use in the real world, and supported by the references. The article is being restored here, as it was on Saturday but with some improvements from subsequent edits retained. (& as specifically agreed by the other main editors)DGG 05:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: main article

message: This is the correct article under the correct name. For documentation that Open access is the generally --indeed the universally--used name, see the books and documents cited in the article.  For additional discussion, see the talk page for Open access journal
Many of the recent edits have greatly helped the article by improvingthe language and improving the NPOV. It is possible that not all of them have been included here while restoring, but this may take a few days. 
Unfortunately, some of the edit history has gotten lost during the process, and some sections are missing. They will be restored as soon as they can be located. It is possdible that only older versions of these sections will be found, and then they will need to be updated as best wee can.  I firmly believe that when we are finished, we will have a much improved article here for the main article, and much improved articles for some of the assoicated article as well. 
Please make what improvements you can in the meantime. But please do not rearrange the material in a radical way without prior consultation on the talk page to attain consensus. It has been a long night restoring it to this point. I apologize to my fellow editors if I have made some errors in the process, or contributedto the confusion. 
Because of the unfinished state, I have placed an underconstruction tag on the page.  And I hope all the redirects work. I know we'll need some work on the links, both in and out. 
DGG 07:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: restore main article in progress

message: Now that we've gotten the article back, I am editing it to maintain a NPOV between OA as publishing as open access journals,  and OA as self-archiving in a repository. I am usingthe prefered language of those who follow those roads--"open access journals" and "self-archiving".  People who run open access journals call them open access journals. 
(The article also needs a NPOV between pubishing OA and publishing non OA, but that will take more than a copy-edit.) DGG 19:11, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: copyedits.

message: The reference numbers do not match. It might be better to follow one of the standard WP formats, as shown in WP:CITES —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: The BOAI I and II links were to the same place, http://www.soros.org/openaccess/index.shtml, which mentions both of the methods equally. Is there any published use calling one of them BOAI I and the other BOAI II? If not, this cannot be the place to introduce the distinction. DGG 23:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: BOAI

message: A fair bit of clean-up seems to have taken place already.  How does the cleanup notice get taken off?  Suzannah 01:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the basic structure is more or less agreeable to all the editors involved, though undoubtedly there will be some additions and deletions and changes  to many of the details, based on the attention to detail which has always been shown to articles on this topic. The tag served the purpose of saying, yes, we know there's more to do, don't bite us about it. Anyone can put it on, anyone can put it off.  I just took it off.DGG 04:42, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: cleanup

message: True NPOV requires that the depth of opposition not be glossed over, and that the arguments of those who think OA unnecessary, undesirable, impossible, or not worth the trouble, be presented in the strongest possible form, to match the arguments for OA that are already being presented in the strongest possible way. I expanded a little, but there is more to come. It would be better if those opposed to OA were aware of this article, so they could add their own arguments, but I will do the best for them that I can. Eventually, each individual argument, pro and con, must be sourced. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: A large number of useful external links have been removed. Why was this ignored? --Seans Potato Business 00:19, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article and several related articles were totally reshuffled a few weeks ago (although with good intentions) Most of the edit history of several articles disappeared, and the articles had to be reconstructed using  what prior versions could be found.  From memory, I think essentially all of the links  also appear in the more specific articles or as inline references in this article. If you can remember something you think is particularly useful, I'll see what I can reconstruct or if necessary recompose, with   help from friends.  DGG 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External Links 

message: I almost removed the entire section on this as COI. However, the nature of the button is supported by the website of the guy who made the button & much other eprint software, which be considered an RS. The statement on usefulness depends entirely on opinion--expressed in postings on the  e-mail list of the WP editor who made the  edit. I don't want to fight over opinion, I have elsewhere expressed my own (somewhat skeptical) opinion of the virtues of this feature. but I have no business inserting such opinion in the article.  There is certainly no consensus--I tried for neutral purely descriptive NPOV.   DGG 01:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: button

message: There was earlier consensus, now confirmed,  that the by the numbers section would best be removed when it was no longer being actively maintained, and the time has come. They are still available for reference in the page history. 
DGG 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: by the numbers

message: The question of whether  the page Open access publishing   should be merged with open access journal has been asked again. There are some reasons for having two pages:
#the open access journal page links to pages for lists of oa journals, and oa journals in the various disciplines. Though not all of this has been done yet, there's a project around working on getting them all.
#There seems to be no common term for (OA journal + hybrid OA journal + delayed OA journal). This would imply that this present open access publishing page should be the main page for the concept, with the other three leading off it.  
#Doing this would take a little rearranging, but it wouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done without moving too many links.
Opinion? DGG 05:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There are now at least three articles on this, open access publishing, open access journal, and open access. That seems excessive to me. Superm401 - Talk 06:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree. I find it excessive and confusing; and I am familiar with the topic and interested in it. Imagine how confusing it would be for a layperson seeking information. PretentiousSnot (talk) 04:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: OA is definitely not the same thing as OA publishing, but they are still perpetually being conflated. It would be a big mistake and would just compound people's confusion instead of correcting it if the two entries were (yet again) merged under OA publishing. OA Publishing is one of the two ways to provide OA. The other is OA self-archiving of non-OA publications. OA is the general notion, and OAP and OASA are the two particular cases of it. Leave well enough alone. Stevan Harnad 02:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

text: But alternatively, FWIW,2, I think Harnad had a discussion on his list for alternative terms, and there really wasnt much agreement on anything better. He himself still uses green and gold. What I might do is bring this to the attention of a few people offline. DGG (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

text: * I completely agree (except with the very first sentence) Hopsyturvy (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Stevan, I am no longer of the opinion I gave in April. It was suggested to me by that OAP is often used as a synonym for publishing in an OAJ, and that therefore a more general term was needed to encompass the two standard methods--an argument I find quite plausible and that matches yours. Recall that those publishers publishing OA journals or even optional OA Journals refer to themselves as OA Publishers. I've never seen the term used by those who instead permit self-archiving.  Nonetheless, open access as such is now an ambiguous word. Looking at recent news stories using it, it seems to be used most by people outside the publishing/librarianship/repository world for equality of access to the hgh speed internet, of the openness of clinical trials for those who wish to enroll. I suggest therefore the following which would avoid all these problems, dividing the material in OAP between the OA and the OAJ article as appropriate, and retitling the present article from OA to OA (publishing). We still need a list of OA Publishers, and that does have to go somewhere. OA Publisher was rejected as a title for this two years ago, but maybe we can try again.   As for Peer Review, the current proposal has been to make peer review of scientific grants into a separate article,a the considerations and the literature is quite different from peer review in publishing --or for that matter peer review in academic promotions or evaluation. I think there's an advantage in being specific.  While we are both here, what's in your opinion the best generic term for green OA -- "self-archiving" seems wrong for what is usually now mandatory archiving, especially when its organised not by the author but the institution,  and institutional repositories are of  course not the only way it is done, though of course we know it is your preferred way. DGG (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *David, if there is ambiguity among the various senses of OA (countryside, bandwidth, research) then OA could be disambiguated as OA (research), but I think calling it OA (publishing) would be a very bad idea, for the same reasons as above: OA is something that is provided to individual articles, and it can be provided by the publisher (OAP) or the author (OASA). And SA is self-archiving even if the keystrokes are being done by the institution's library and even if the host is a funder repository. There are only two parties that can make an author's own writings OA: the author or the publisher. Let's not conflate this with various inchoate plans to make the author's institution the "copyright holder." Even there, it's the author assigning copyright for his own writing to his own institution (and it's a silly makeshift arrangement anyway -- essentially an attempt to create conditions that make it easier for an author to provide OA to his own writings). The author's own self is the "self" in :self-archiving," If the publisher is not the one making the article OA, then it's the author. That makes it self-archiving, irrespective of the implementational details, either contractual or ergonomic. And it  very much needs to be called self-archiving (again, regardless of who is stroking the keys, and regardless of the fact that the author's institution and or funder is mandating that the article be self-archived). The "self" in the self-archiving is not the stroker of the depositing keys, but the one who wrote the article -- as opposed to the one who published it. Otherwise, authors will remain passive, as they are now, imagining that OA to their articles is something that needs to be provided by someone else, other than themselves. Stevan Harnad 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: merge question

message: Restored from the talk page that had been at Open access publishing prior to the merger to Open access and subsequent move back to this location Parsecboy (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: * I completely agree (except with the very first sentence) Hopsyturvy (talk) 13:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *Stevan, I am no longer of the opinion I gave in April. It was suggested to me by that OAP is often used as a synonym for publishing in an OAJ, and that therefore a more general term was needed to encompass the two standard methods--an argument I find quite plausible and that matches yours. Recall that those publishers publishing OA journals or even optional OA Journals refer to themselves as OA Publishers. I've never seen the term used by those who instead permit self-archiving.  Nonetheless, open access as such is now an ambiguous word. Looking at recent news stories using it, it seems to be used most by people outside the publishing/librarianship/repository world for equality of access to the hgh speed internet, of the openness of clinical trials for those who wish to enroll. I suggest therefore the following which would avoid all these problems, dividing the material in OAP between the OA and the OAJ article as appropriate, and retitling the present article from OA to OA (publishing). We still need a list of OA Publishers, and that does have to go somewhere. OA Publisher was rejected as a title for this two years ago, but maybe we can try again.   As for Peer Review, the current proposal has been to make peer review of scientific grants into a separate article,a the considerations and the literature is quite different from peer review in publishing --or for that matter peer review in academic promotions or evaluation. I think there's an advantage in being specific.  While we are both here, what's in your opinion the best generic term for green OA -- "self-archiving" seems wrong for what is usually now mandatory archiving, especially when its organised not by the author but the institution,  and institutional repositories are of  course not the only way it is done, though of course we know it is your preferred way. DGG (talk) 03:40, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *David, if there is ambiguity among the various senses of OA (countryside, bandwidth, research) then OA could be disambiguated as OA (research), but I think calling it OA (publishing) would be a very bad idea, for the same reasons as above: OA is something that is provided to individual articles, and it can be provided by the publisher (OAP) or the author (OASA). And SA is self-archiving even if the keystrokes are being done by the institution's library and even if the host is a funder repository. There are only two parties that can make an author's own writings OA: the author or the publisher. Let's not conflate this with various inchoate plans to make the author's institution the "copyright holder." Even there, it's the author assigning copyright for his own writing to his own institution (and it's a silly makeshift arrangement anyway -- essentially an attempt to create conditions that make it easier for an author to provide OA to his own writings). The author's own self is the "self" in :self-archiving," If the publisher is not the one making the article OA, then it's the author. That makes it self-archiving, irrespective of the implementational details, either contractual or ergonomic. And it  very much needs to be called self-archiving (again, regardless of who is stroking the keys, and regardless of the fact that the author's institution and or funder is mandating that the article be self-archived). The "self" in the self-archiving is not the stroker of the depositing keys, but the one who wrote the article -- as opposed to the one who published it. Otherwise, authors will remain passive, as they are now, imagining that OA to their articles is something that needs to be provided by someone else, other than themselves. Stevan Harnad 02:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I think this section needs a lot of attention. It is written in a very relaxed way, with few citations. What is the point of this section? What is it driving at? Can't we stick to facts on Wikipedia, and let other websites do OA advocacy? What on earth does "Public and advocacy" mean anyway??
An anonymous user just added a mention of HINARI, which seems fair, but they also stick the boot in to OA with the unsourced claim that "Critics of the various open access initiatives point out that there is little evidence that a significant amount of scientific literature is currently unavailable to those who would benefit from it. While no library has subscriptions to every journal that might be of benefit, virtually all published research can be acquired via interlibrary loan". Well this might be true, but doesn't this belong in the "Criticisms" section? And it needs a citation to back it up, otherwise it is simply POV. I'm guessing that the editor has some kind of COI (as do I, but I've declared mine as working for BioMed Central). It is probably no coincidence that this very issue has just cropped up on the World Association of Medical Editors listserve. As for the substance of the comment, we can't all spend our time taking trips to the British Library or filling in little forms and waiting weeks for one article to turn up... Does anyone know of citations to reputable sources or published literature detailing the problems with access to the scientific literature? Fences and windows 23:54, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A good deal has gotten out of date. Does anyone want to revise, or have we all become exhausted from discussing this?DGG (talk) 23:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Public and advocacy section

message: I removed most of the criticism section, because it consisted of a back and forth of completely unsourced arguments ("Many people say X, but many people respond Y"). I'm sure there is plenty of criticism that can be sourced for the section. Superm401 - Talk 07:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced arguments 

message: Bentham Open was added into the introduction. This is a new collection of journals that has attracted significant controversy and is not a notable open access publisher. See http://poynder.blogspot.com/2008/04/open-access-interviews-matthew-honan.html Fences and windows (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does the controversy make it notable, perhaps? --Crusio (talk) 10:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed prominent mention of Bentham Open 

message: User Piotrus has created a new page Open Access movement and removed content from this page. I fail to understand the logic of this, and have reverted. If anyone wants to make such major edits, wait for a discussion and some kind of consensus, please. Fences and windows (talk) 11:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reverted your revert. The logic is thus: a social movement is not the same as a concept about it. A civil rights movement is different from civil rights concept. Free and open source software movement is different from free and open source software concept. And so on - including the fact that open access movement is not the same as open access concept.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open access movement 

message: I've tagged this article as needing cleanup. Especially now that Piotrus has decided to fork this page, there's a lot wrong with this article, and it needs reorganising. I may try to do this. I think it needs a whole new structure, as the current headings don't make much sense. "Authors and researchers"? "Users"? Fences and windows (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup