Category: Uncategorized

Posted on

Teaching about Open Access Without Saying “Open Access”

Do you know anyone who, full of misconceptions about open access, has a knee-jerk negative reaction to discussions of open access?  I certainly do.  Correcting the misconceptions that float around CUNY (and everywhere) about open access (e.g., the mistaken notion that “open access” means “vanity publishing,” the fear that open access leads to more plagiarism, the failure to realize that openness and rigorous peer review are completely independent issues) will take years of patient instruction.  One tactic to try now is teaching about open access without actually uttering the phrase “open access.”  I decided to give that approach a whirl in Brooklyn College’s upcoming newsletter for faculty; here is what I wrote:

After a journal accepts your article, you have to sign a copyright agreement — usually long, dense, and difficult to understand.  What exactly are you agreeing to when you sign that document?  Historically, you were signing away all rights to your article — only the publisher could copy, distribute, and republish your work.  Often, the agreement even prohibited you from sharing copies of your article with colleagues or students.  But you signed because you had to, because that’s what people who wanted tenure did.

Now, the vast majority of journals have more author-friendly agreements.  Some journals let authors retain copyright and simply ask for a license to the work.  Some journals still claim copyright but then give authors back a variety of rights, including the right to post the article online on a personal website, a disciplinary repository (e.g., arXiv, SSRN, RePEc), or an institutional repository (coming soon to CUNY, we hope!).  Some journals allow authors to self-archive the pre-refereed version of the article; some journal allow authors to self-archive the post-refereed version; some journals even allow authors to self-archive the final, formatted PDF version!  More specifically, according to SHERPA/RoMEO, a tool that summarizes journals’ copyright and self-archiving policies:

  • 87% of scholarly journals allow immediate self-archiving of some version of the article
  • 27% of scholarly journals allow immediate self-archiving of the pre-refereed version of the article
  • 44% of scholarly journals allow immediate self-archiving of the post-refereed version of the article
  • 16% of scholarly journals allow immediate self-archiving of the final, published PDF
  • After the expiration of embargo periods (usually 6 to 24 months), 94% allow self-archiving of the post-refereed or PDF version of the article

So, chances are that you have the right to make most of your articles freely available online.  Take advantage of your rights!  If you do, more readers will find your work, and more researchers will cite your work!  Learn more at the presentation about authors’ rights on Faculty Day (May 22)!

Yes, that blurb is entirely about green open access.  Nope, I didn’t use the phrase “open access” once.  If you know any open access naysayers, give this tactic a try.  And, of course, feel free to use (or improve upon!) my language.

Posted on

Viewpoints from NEJM on Open Access

These articles might be of interest, especially to science faculty:

For the Sake of Inquiry and Knowledge — The Inevitability of Open Access Ann J. Wolpert, M.L.S. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:785-787February 28, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1211410

Open but Not Free — Publishing in the 21st Century Martin Frank, Ph.D. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:787-789February 28, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1211259

The Downside of Open-Access Publishing Charlotte Haug, M.D., Ph.D. N Engl J Med 2013; 368:791-793February 28, 2013DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1214750

Posted on

Does the White House OA directive make FASTR irrelevant?

If you’ve been following the national open access news, you probably noticed that the White House’s directive to federal agencies to implement open access policies was announced very shortly after the FASTR open access bill was introduced.  And you probably wondered about the relationship of the directive to FASTR. Does the directive make FASTR irrelevant? Does FASTR make the directive unnecessary? No, says open access expert Peter Suber: “The two approaches complement one another.”

Here are a few highlights from Suber’s excellent clarification of the relationship between the directive and FASTR:

  • “FASTR does not make the White House directive unnecessary. FASTR may never be adopted. And if it is adopted, it will be after some time for study, education, lobbying, amendment, negotiation, and debate. By contrast, the White House directive takes effect today.”
  • “Similarly, the White House directive does not make FASTR unnecessary. On the contrary, we need legislation to codify federal OA policies. The next president could rescind today’s White House directive, but could not rescind legislation.”
  • “Both ask a wide range of federal funding agencies to require OA for the results of the research they fund. But the new directive applies to more agencies. . . . FASTR applies to about 11 agencies and the directive to about 19. Among the agencies omitted by FASTR but covered by the directive are USAid and the Smithsonian Institution.”
  • “Both put a limit on permissible embargoes, but the directive allows longer embargoes. FASTR caps embargos at six months, and the directive caps them at 12 months.”
  • “FASTR is silent on data, but the White House directive requires OA for articles (Section 3) and OA for data (Section 4).”

On its own, the White House directive is fantastic.  Combined with FASTR, it can be much, much better.

So, no, they don’t make each other irrelevant.

And, yes, please keep doing everything you can do to increase FASTR’s chances of success.  The Alliance for Taxpayer Access explains how.