...How do you feel about open access publishing like PLOS/BMC?
I blogged about this here. I believe that open access papers will get more coverage in old and new media than papers published in traditional subscription journals. There are huge time advantages in reading open access journals. I can Google for a topic and in 2 seconds can be reading the entire article. If I come across a paper in a closed journal, I can?t get it immediately. The extra steps involved will inevitably push people toward open access models.
Another factor playing in open access?s favor is that it doesn?t create pointless conflicts between a journal and the people who write about what?s in it. One striking example involved a blogger who had written about a paper sourced from a subscription journal: This individual reproduced a figure and got an email threatening legal action. This looked really bad for the publisher and [the] blogosphere revolted. If I write a piece that is sourced from a PLOS paper and reproduce a figure on my blog, I know I won?t be harassed....
Posted by
Peter Suber at 6/23/2008 12:31:00 PM.
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.
