Access. This is just a short list of some issues that can be frustrating…
routes to Open Access
Access having only been working in this area for a couple of years. Before that
I was a research scientist, and the movement had largely passed me by, with the
exception of noticing that I didn’t have to click through the university journal
subscription pages to download some articles.
count of the number of meetings I’ve been to about Open Access where the
introduction has included an incorrect definition of the distinction between
green and gold open access. ‘Green’ often gets described as free, whereas
‘gold’ you have to pay for. I’ve already said that I’m a newbie in this area,
so I will refer you to Peter Suber’s Open Access
for a definitive explanation.
in a repository and gold is open access delivered by journals. There may be
associated costs, but that is not the defining difference.
advocates about which route, green or gold, is best.
message about the benefits of Open Access – some of which are being highlighted this week by the Accelerating Science Award Program (ASAP) which recognises individuals who have applied
scientific research – published through Open Access – to innovate in any field
and benefit society.
So, researchers (or their funders)
can choose which route to use – most funders offer the flexibilty of both routes.
affected by publishing options, for example. But, just for today, the simple
take-home message is that you can go ‘green’ using the Manuscript Submission
Service via Europe PMC plus, or ‘gold’
by publishing Open Access with a publisher who deposits their contents or
individual Open Access articles with us (you can find out more on the journal list).
mouse clicks to make an article Open Access, but in reality a researcher needs
to understand the impact that funder, institutional and publisher Open Access
policies can have on each other. And
they already have enough to do carrying out their research.
is not perfect, and that the researcher is usually the one at the receiving end
of sometimes conflicting advice in this area. We don’t have a solution just
yet, but hopefully it’s worth sharing that the 24 Europe PMC funders are talking to each
other, and to publishers and institutions to try and reach agreements that will
make things easier on researchers in the future. These conversations can take
time, but they are happening.
Access, but with the mis-guided conflation of Open Access with poor or no peer
by Science where the author had submitted a spoof paper to a sub-set of Open Access journals. His conclusion was that there is ‘little or no [peer review] scrutiny’ at many open access journals’. Others have already made a far better job than I could of
addressing the flaws in the design and conclusions described in that article,
for example, here
and here. My impression from comments on Twitter and blogs is that there is
generally agreement that the research calls into question the integrity of the
peer review system, and is nothing to do with Open Access (beyond the fact that
the only journals included in the study were Open Access). In fact, some Open
Access publishers are taking the lead in trying to address some of the problems
long-associated with the peer review process, such as eLife and the Nature Frontiers series of
Last, and by no means least:
Access that are not themselves Open Access.
know I’m not the only person to find this odd/frustrating/completely
counter-intuitive. But, really? Is it some kind of elaborate joke on the part
of the authors?
There are a lot of exciting things happening during Open Access
week (21-27 October 2013). I hope everyone has a good week, whatever they’re
doing and wherever they are in the world.
competition, Access to Understanding 2014, in partnership with the British
Library. Look out here and on Twitter @EuropePMC_news in November for further