Talk:Open access
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Open access article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 12 months  |
 | This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Open access journal on 20 May 2009. The result of the discussion was to not merge. |
 | This article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Since the external publication copied Wikipedia rather than the reverse, please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
New book out March 2023
editBaldwin, Peter (2023). Athena unbound : why and how scholarly knowledge should be free for all. Cambridge, Massachusetts. ISBN 9780262048002.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048002/athena-unbound/
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)
Venn diagram
editThe "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 [1]. Marcrr (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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 ([2]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)
I've removed the diagram. There's no need to keep such obviously incorrect imagery. Nemo 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
Why is FAIR mentioned in this article?
editFAIR and open access have nothing to do with each other.
A FAIR object can in fact be not open access. They are two different concepts. It's bizarre to see FAIR included in an article on open access.
This could be seen as a personalised assertion, so to support this I refer to external sources including: 1. https://www.go-fair.org/resources/faq/ask-question-difference-fair-data-open-data/
"FAIR is not equal to Open: The ‘A’ in FAIR stands for ‘Accessible under well defined conditions’. There may be legitimate reasons to shield data and services generated with public funding from public access... None of these [FAIR] principles necessitate data being “open” or “free”."
I propose therefore deleting the section on FAIR in this article. Metacladistics (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Open Library of Humanities
editI came across this opinion piece today & then went to www
- Abizadeh, Arash (2024-07-16). "Opinion: Academic journals are a lucrative scam – and we're determined to change that". the Guardian. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
- "OLH journals". Open Library of Humanities. Retrieved 2024-07-19.
- "Who we are". Open Library of Humanities. Retrieved 2024-07-19.