G.A. Ascoli, Looking Forward to Open Access, Neuroinformatics, 3, 1 (2005) pp. 1-4. Only the abstract is free online, at least so far: '....Buzz regarding [the NIH public-access policy], its reception, impact, and consequences, was prominent at the 34th Society for Neuroscience Meeting in San Diego, CA (October 23–27, 2004). Unofficial opinions were exchanged there among individual investigators at the meetings of both the Society's Neuroinformatics Committee and our journal's Editorial Board, as well as at and between scientific sessions. On Publisher Row, Elsevier distributed an unsigned "Dear Colleague" letter strongly opposing the policy, outlining a series of potentially negative consequences for the whole scientific community, and questioning the purported lack of thorough consideration in the NIH decision process.In this issue we publish two opposite opinions on this controversy: that of Elsevier (Merkel-Sobotta, 2005) and that of Biomed Central, among the most prominent supporters and developers, among publishers, of the "open access" model (Velterop, 2005). This Editorial takes a somewhat intermediate position, recognizing the benefits of open access to scientific publications, while starting a dialogue regarding possible steps to limit or avoid any harmful side effect of this movement.'
Posted by
Peter Suber at 5/18/2005 01:16:00 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.
