This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles
Open access is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to
Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the
discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy articles
This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
Surhone, L. M., Tennoe, M. T., & Henssonow, S. F. (2010), Open Journal Systems: GNU general public license, Public knowledge project, Open access (publishing), Betascript Publishing{{
citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Like everything else, OA model has some advantages and some disadvantages. The advantages are discussed thoroughly in this page but the downsides of OA are not mentioned at all. Here are a few sources that can be used on this topic:
Sort of. Some of the criticisms above are of predatory publishers (on which there's already a
section in the page), and which are important not to conflate with OA in general. A couple of the links are also just opinion pieces by Jeffrey Beall, who is certainly an important critic, but some of the 'anti-corporatist movement' criticism is more a political stance than a criticism of OA. The replication crisis link isn't really relevant, since it's just pointing out an anecdote of a rubbish article published by an OA journal, and there are similar anecdotes for articles in paywalled/subscription journals. Frustratingly, I've not found any metanalysis of the quantitative studies done, and most of those either had no subscription journal control group (
example) or were only submitted to subscription journals (
example).
However I think warranted could be:
some notes on APC inflation (and comparison to subscription inflation)
quality comparisons to subscription journals (if there are quantitative studies around).
clarification of limitations of parts of the ecosystem (predatory publishers already given sufficient space TBH), possibly a bit on basing policy on preprints (the current section on
Effect of preprints on later publication is way too long).
Actually I found Whitfield's Replication crisis insightful, given the fact that Jeffrey Beall is now being openly criticized for his views on OA. On the DOAJ list, which is unrelated to Beall's work, only 10% of the indexed journals meet the basic standards of academic publishing (
[1]). They have all sorts of problems, some lack article identifiers (such as DOI), or the required licenses, and sometimes articles simply vanish because the journal does not offer stable digital preservation of the articles. There is no shortage of articles discussing the OA movement, It is no surprise that most praise OA movement, but some give a more critical perspective. You are right, the APC fees are high, Vervoort et al (
[2]), says it is on average 3000$ for Cardiology journals. Regarding the quality of journals, I think a small percentage of OA journals publish worthy articles. If you take a look at the first 100 journals with the highest impact and notability you will notice that only 5 journals are OA and the rest are non-OA (
[3]). All that said, imo, what this page needs is a criticism section discussing how the OA is being abused. The OA movement certainly benefits everyone, but in accordance with NPOV policy we also need to address how the model is being abused.
Marzbans (
talk) 14:38, 24 October 2021 (UTC)reply
Editing for grad school project
Hi! I'm an library science grad student taking a look at this page as part of a Wikipedia editing assignment for a course on Information Policy. This page has been identified by our instructor as needing some work, both structurally and for minor issues. I'm going to be making some edits, most likely starting with working on wordiness and readability but I wanted to introduce myself as you may be seeing a lot of edits from a new user! I'm reviewing the talk page for areas that have been previously highlighted for improvement. Feel free to share priorities or feedback.~~~~
ACBatSLIS (
talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)reply
New book out March 2023
Baldwin, Peter (2023). Athena unbound : why and how scholarly knowledge should be free for all. Cambridge, Massachusetts.
ISBN9780262048002.{{
cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (
link)
I think this book tries to be a complete story of open access, and as such, should be a resource for developing this article. I do not yet have a copy.
Bluerasberry (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)reply
Venn diagram
The "Venn diagram highlighting the key features of different types of open access in scholarly publishing" contains mistakes. For example Gold OA and Diamond OA are exclusive, with Gold OA restricted to "author pays", whereas the definition of Gold OA in the page specifies correctly:
The majority of gold open access journals charging APCs follow an "author-pays" model,[13] although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA.
The diagram also includes two types of "Vanity press", neither of which are defined in the page nor in the source article
[4].
Marcrr (
talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree. The conflation of "gold" with "APC" is a long standing and frustrating mistake for many. If reproduced here, it should be explained that some people define "gold OA" as for-fee even though the label was not intended to mean that. Diprose, et al. reflect on this problem (
[5]https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.3398). They propose a less complicated set of labels without really resolving the problem that these labels are meant to describe both how things are paid for and what version they might be. They focus on the latter. --
Jaireeodell (
talk) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)reply
I've removed the diagram. There's no need to keep such obviously incorrect imagery.
Nemo 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)reply