Scholarly Open Access
opposed to subscription journals, most of which which compel authors to
transfer their copyright? Many open access journals allow authors to
Under this license, others can
republish your work—even for profit—without asking for permission.
They can create translations and adaptations, and they can reprint your
work wherever they want, including in places that might offend you.
it be awful to have your work translated or reprinted? I mean, no one
actually wants to disseminate their work, do they? This is mostly
scare-mongering about things that might happen .001% of the time. And
because of the ever-so-slight chance someone might make money from your
work, or it might be posted to a site you don’t agree with, we
shouldn’t share research? This blog is licensed CC BY, and I don’t
care if either of those things happen. What’s not logical is for these
largely unfounded fears to lead us back to paywalls and
Scholarly open-access publishing has
made many tens of thousands of scholarly articles freely available, but
more information is not necessarily better information.
don’t think anyone has ever claimed this. Even if there were only
subscription journals, there would be new journals and more articles
Predatory journals threaten to bring
down the whole cumulative system of scholarly communication…
think there may be some exaggeration here.
In the long term, the open-access
movement will be seen as an ephemeral social cause that tried and failed
to topple an industry.
article initially published on