Talk:Open access

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Is Open Access more of a Movement or an Industry Strategy?


Contents

[edit] 'Free access'

I've heard some poeple (notably someone who works for Oxford University Press) making a distinction between 'open access' (where the author pays) and 'free access' (where no-one pays). Should this distinction be incorporated into the site?

Scientists from all major Dutch universities officially launched a website on Tuesday where all their research material can be accessed for free.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/11/open_access_research/

http://www.darenet.nl/en/page/language.view/home - Omegatron 23:09, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

Wicked! Thanks for the link Omegatron. I've included this in the main article. --Username132 23:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Non-notable external links

I am not keen on an edit war, but I do agree with Eliezer that the yasharbooks links is non-notable. In fact, it stands out like a sore thumb even in this fairly long list we already have. WP is not a web directory, and we shouldn't list every website that claims to do some sort of open access thingy. Rl 6 July 2005 15:42 (UTC)

It doesn't just claim to do it, it seems to do it, providing free for download some extremely high quality material in an under-represented area. In what way does it "stick out like a sore thumb"? Jayjg (talk) 7 July 2005 14:46 (UTC)

==question: preferred terminology this article refers to

It is a link to a highly specific, tiny bit of fringe science. The other links are related to open access (well, duh!), this one belongs into Torah if it is a good source which is not something I am qualified to decide. Rl 7 July 2005 15:17 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive inline external links

This article contains far too many external links inline in the text, and in many cases these could link to existing Wikipedia articles or articles should be created. External links, should they be necessary, should be grouped at the end of the article, or included discreetly as a citation using a bracket, e.g. [1]. Please consult Wikipedia:External links#How to link for the policy on when where to use external links in Wikipedia. Thanks. Lexor|Talk 12:32, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open access publishing revert

I removed the following text from the first paragraph. First, open access publishing doesn't always require submission fees. Second, this sentence doesn't fit at this point in the document. Third, other parts of the document do cover this. Fourth, the second sentence is POV

"Open Access publishing, where the author (or a third-party acting on his/her behalf) pays to publish, has been proposed as an alternative to a subscription-based revenue model. Unfortunately, its success has been rather limited."

Liblamb 18:34, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia policy on links to Closed Access

Does Wikipedia have a policy on linking to sites which are not Open Access? In science and medicine this is sometimes necessary since these are the definitive references. They are also usually protected by strong copyright, so abstraction will have to be careful.

Would it be a useful idea to have a flag on the link indicating that the site is not Open Access (i.e. the reader would have to pay to read it)? I have done this for Mauveine.

Petermr 12:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticisms of Open Access

There should be some possible downsides of the open access philosophy included in the article, at the moment anyone reading it would be unaware that any arguments against full OA exist - they're alluded to at the beginning but aren't covered later on and the later paragraphs are relentlessly positive. For example, many librarians may indeed be in favour of OA, but equally many may not wish their subscription budgets to be transferred to pay for academics' submission charges. And if these charges don't exist, where does the sustainable money come from for the publishing process? Paraffinbrain 14:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - at the moment, this article feels rather biased Papervolcano 11:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)papervolcano
Well, it's still biased as of November 2006. Since Wikipedia is open access, I guess it demonstrates one particular flaw: mass lunacy. Open Access says "yes" to the Dark Ages and unpaid contribution, and "no" to fair reward for great ideas and individual thought. I guess we're all supposed to do things for free in the future and live in a shack while doing research. I don't know about you, but I can't think when I'm eating two-day old pizza. Here, let's smoke a bong together and sleep in our own feces. Hooray for Open Access! --24.77.216.252 16:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Have you actually read the article? As I understand it, researchers don't get paid when people buy journals containing their work - Open Access wont affect a researcher's income (no-one is asking them to work for free). What is being asked, is that they publish with one of the many Open Access journals who then provide the work for free (traditionally, journals would keep the money for themselves). --Username132 (talk) 23:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Berlin declaration

I have been told that the Wikimedia chapter Germany signed the Berlin declaration. GerardM 13:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How Can I Help?

How can individuals support open access? What can we do?

see What you can do to promote open access --Username132 (talk) 23:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Open access

At the Open access article is this section of numbers/trivia, Open_access#Open_access_by_the_numbers. Should it be there? I've not seen anything like it elsewhere on Wikipedia, and it even makes reference to the reader, saying "If you know of numbers that measure the benefits, growth, or status of open access, please add them here". Since cross-namespace redirects are not allowed due to problems with forking and Wikipedia's wider aims as an encyclopedia, should this section not be removed?


[edit] prefered terminology?

What do the people here prefer:

  • subject repository
  • subject-based repository
  • discipline repository
  • disciplinary repository
  • discipline-based repository

one advantage of the -based repository is that it would be parallel with funder-based repository etc. . DGG 08:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) (without getting into a discussion of the general merits of this approach)

I like subject suppository, myself --24.77.216.252 16:21, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other Colors

I've heard of other colors being used for different methods of OA, like the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) which is supposedly free after six months. Anyone know anything about this ? Ericblazek 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new section

Shouldn't the newly added large section "Towards Understanding the Role of Open Repositories in the Information Landscape, Open Repositories Conference 2007" be either a separate artcle or integrated into the main article better? WP is not a blog. DGG 04:01, 2 December 2006 (UTC) DGG 04:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOpen_access_5f54.html"