Could Distributed Peer Review Better Decide Grant Funding?
The landscape of academic grant funding is notoriously competitive and plagued by lengthy, bureaucratic processes, exacerbated by difficulties in finding willing reviewers. Distributed […]
Open Access Week starts today and in honor Stephen Pinfield provides an overview of 18 propositions on open access identified through an extensive analysis of the discourse. It is clear that whilst OA has come a long way in the last five years, there is a lot to do in making open access work.
The head of insights at Nature Publishing Group and Palgrave Macmillan shares findings from a recent survey of authors that finds few researchers are now unaware of open access, but their perceptions of quality still remain a significant barrier to further OA involvement.
No one ever assumed that everything in print was trustworthy, says Virginia Barbour, and neither should that be the case for open access content. Content is what matters – whether delivered by open access, subscription publishing, or a printed document.
The U.S. National Archives has set itself the gargantuan goal of digitizing its full collection. Social scientists can now weigh in on what documents should go to the head of the line.
Are universities able to shoulder the costs of the open access transition, especially as the total cost of publishing is, for the moment, rising? Stephen Pinfield presents findings on the current state of institutional costs.
New research indicates that self-archived, or ‘green’ open-access articles, regardless of format, receive significantly higher citation counts than do non-OA articles from the same editions of the same major political science journals.
The ‘free access’ to subscribers of the journal Nature isn’t OA-lite, argues Martin Eve. It’s not even OA. But it is a start.
The editor of an open-access journal looks at the benefits (and some of the headaches) associated with that model.