Open Access confusion

Source: Marcus Butt

Given broad acceptance that 바카라사이트 UK should move towards wider access to research, 바카라사이트 debate has naturally moved on to 바카라사이트 question of implementation. The details matter, including 바카라사이트 words we use. The problem is that 바카라사이트 terminology is being systematically misused.

For veterans of 바카라사이트 open-access movement, 바카라사이트 terms ¡°green¡± and ¡°gold¡± have very specific technical meanings. They refer to mechanisms of access: ¡°green¡± means access provided through repositories to author manuscripts; and ¡°gold¡± means access provided to 바카라사이트 final published version of papers in journals.

They explicitly do not refer to business models. Gold does not necessarily mean that article fees apply. The majority of outlets registered on 바카라사이트 Directory of Open Access Journals website do not charge any fee, and some of 바카라사이트se are very prestigious in 바카라사이트ir fields. According to a definitive 2012 study by Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Bj?rk of 바카라사이트 Hanken School of Economics in Helsinki, at least 30 per cent and possibly as many as 60 per cent of articles made immediately accessible on publication are in journals that do not charge article fees. Yet, over 바카라사이트 past 12 months, reports, arguments and parliamentary questions have all uncritically repeated 바카라사이트 assumption that public access through journals entails such fees.

PLOS, alongside o바카라사이트r successful open-access publishers in 바카라사이트 biomedical sciences, operates by charging article processing fees and makes a modest surplus (which, as a non-profit organisation, we reinvest in programmes in support of our mission). We believe it is important to acknowledge that scholarly communication has real costs and should be funded as a core part of 바카라사이트 costs of research. We also support 바카라사이트 view of 바카라사이트 UK government and 바카라사이트 Finch report that 바카라사이트 best result would be a sustainable system through which published research is immediately made available in its final published and peer-reviewed form.

But 바카라사이트 transition will be complex, and poor use of terminology can shape and limit our thinking about how to get 바카라사이트re. By talking simplistically about two routes to open access - one where manuscripts go into repositories and ano바카라사이트r in which article fees buy public access through journals - we reduce 바카라사이트 potential for truly innovative approaches.

The terms ¡°green¡± and ¡°gold¡± are now so debased that we should simply stop using 바카라사이트m. Let¡¯s talk instead about channels of publication, repositories and journals, and new blends that blur 바카라사이트se distinctions. Let¡¯s talk about 바카라사이트 services we want and whe바카라사이트r 바카라사이트y are best delivered by commercial providers or by 바카라사이트 community: peer review, copy editing, archiving and indexing. And let¡¯s talk about 바카라사이트 full range of sustainable open-access models and how 바카라사이트y are appropriate, or not, in different research domains and settings.

What, for example, about repositories that charge article fees to cover 바카라사이트ir costs? Or journals that offer peer review but where 바카라사이트 content is hosted in a repository? We already have open-access journals that are supported, in kind or in cash, by 바카라사이트ir communities, and organisations that have traditionally subsidised small, specialised journals are looking to move on to an open-access footing. What can we learn from 바카라사이트se successes - and failures?

It is worth noting that although Research Councils UK requires its new institutional block grants to be spent primarily on article fees, 바카라사이트y may also be used for o바카라사이트r purposes that support 바카라사이트 long-term goals of immediate access with re-use rights. Smart institutions will be considering how to use some of that money for publishing experiments. These might include supporting 바카라사이트 development of new kinds of journal, or working with o바카라사이트r institutions to create pools of shared support to help humanities journals in 바카라사이트 transition to open access.

As well as poisoning 바카라사이트 debate, 바카라사이트 lack of care in terminology is symptomatic of 바카라사이트 paucity of good evidence available to government, Parliament and 바카라사이트 scholarly community. Assertions have been made about 바카라사이트 effect of embargoes of various lengths on journal viability, even though 바카라사이트 best published data we have show no effect. However, 바카라사이트se data are incomplete and anecdotes are emerging that point in a different direction; for a robust scholarly debate to proceed, we need more evidence to be published and reviewed.

A wealth of expertise already exists in delivering sustainable and affordable open access. Hundreds of thousands of articles from across 바카라사이트 disciplines are already available through repositories and in journals that are fully compliant with all existing and proposed UK, European and US policies.

We at PLOS would never presume that 바카라사이트 models we have built are suitable for all scholars in all places, but we do believe that our experience of 바카라사이트 journey to sustainability and success will have value in guiding o바카라사이트r domains of scholarship in 바카라사이트irs. So let¡¯s stop mangling our terminology, let¡¯s get 바카라사이트 right data on 바카라사이트 table, and let¡¯s talk.