In three detailed posts, Peter Murray-Rust documents the access barriers at the hybrid journals from the ACS (Author Choice) and Blackwell (Online Open). These are barriers left in place even after authors or author-sponsors pay for the "open" or "free" access options.
These are valuable studies, especially when supplemented by clarifying publisher responses (like Jan Velterop's response to Peter's post on Springer). When a hybrid program doesn't claim to offer "open access", then I don't criticize it for falling short of the BBB definition of OA, even if I criticize it on other grounds. But some of the hybrid programs do claim to offer OA; and even when they carefully pick new terms and avoid promising OA, their access barriers should be well-documented to help authors, funders, and universities decide whether their fees are worth paying. Journals should clearly describe their access policies --OA or not-- and when they don't, we count on independent investigations like Peter's.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 7/11/2007 10:32:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
