Tags: openaccess (54)

Sort by: Date / Title / URL

  1. "A spoof paper concocted by Science reveals little or no scrutiny at many open-access journals."
  2. Another paper showing a positive effect of OA publishing on impact.
  3. 23-02-2013 to , , , , , , by mako
  4. updated: 25-01-2013, original: 25-01-2013 to , , , , by mako
  5. Tactically, I don't think that this is the step that graduate students should be taking, at least not yet. That said, I respect what Alex is doing.
  6. Interesting!
  7. Awesome. Not open access but, at least in the medium term, a positive way to address issues of access to the academic resources necessary to write a great encyclopedia.
  8. Mad is famous!
  9. Academics have protested against Elsevier's business practices for years with little effect. These are some of their objections: They charge exorbitantly high prices for subscriptions to individual journals. In the light of these high prices, the only realistic option for many libraries is to agree to buy very large "bundles", which will include many journals that those libraries do not actually want. Elsevier thus makes huge profits by exploiting the fact that some of their journals are essential. They support measures such as SOPA, PIPA and the Research Works Act, that aim to restrict the free exchange of information. The key to all these issues is the right of authors to achieve easily-accessible distribution of their work. If you would like to declare publicly that you will not support any Elsevier journal unless they radically change how they operate, then you can do so by filling in your details on this page.
    updated: 13-03-2020, original: 04-06-2012 to , , , , by mako
  10. "Scientists: If you get handed the keys to the Library of Wisdom, then choose to lock the place up and hand over the keys to Elsevier et. al., don't complain about the occult bookstore across the street."
  11. "Two recent articles call for an openness revolution in science: one on GigaOM and the other in the Wall Street Journal. But they’ve got it all wrong. These folks are missing that the process of scientific discovery is not, at its core, an open process. It only becomes an open process at the point of publication."
  12. updated: 08-11-2011, original: 08-11-2011 to , , , , , by mako
  13. Wow! Awesome news.
  14. Awesome.
  15. Interesting idea. I'm worried about getting too excited though since so much is up in the air. If I were this group, I would have waited until I had something to announce.
  16. A extremely convoluted and almost impenetrable argument that, I think, argues that the OKCon crowd is not being clear enough about who the end users are. Might have made a good tweet.
  17. Student Statement on The Right to Research
  18. Good project by some good people.
  19. The last part of this article is crap. Open Access already has a standard license and it's BY-SA. Suggesting BY-NC-ND is regressive. Academics have strong standards already against derivative works. The only market for academic publications is a bizarre artificial one that, honestly, both scholars are being exploited by. Neither NC nor ND is solving real problems. If we're going to suggest standardization, lets have it be on what we really want as opposed to what we might be able to live with.
    17-05-2009 to , , by mako

First / Previous / Next / Last / Page 1 of 2