25 provosts from top universities jointly released a letter supporting current legislation to require open publication of scientific research. Good.
Open access can also match the missions of scholarly societies and publishers who review, edit, and distribute research to serve the advancement of knowledge. Sharing the fruits of research and scholarship inevitably leads to the creation of more research and scholarship, thus highlighting the need for publishing professionals to manage the selection and review of the highest quality research, both publicly and privately funded. Open access to publications in no way negates the need for well-managed and effective peer review or the need for formal publishing.
via: e3 Information Overload, Rallying Behind Open Access:
Related: Britain’s Royal Society Experiments with Open Access by John Hunter:
It seems to me most grants for scientific research should require open publication. I can imagine exceptions, but it seems to me that the expectation should be for open publication, in this day and age, and only allow non-open publication with a good reason.
For public funded research this open access expectation seems obvious. For private foundations in most cases I would think open access publication makes sense also. What business model is used to allow open access is not important, in my opinion. The important factor is open access, how that is accomplished is something that can be experimented with.
…
If I were making the decision for a university I would have expectations that we publish openly.
The Future of Scholarly Publication
The ability to use the internet to more effectively communicate new knowledge should not be sacrificed to protect the old model journals had for sustaining themselves. They should find a way to fund themselves and make their material available for free on the internet (I think some delay for free public access would be fine - the shorter the delay the better). Or they should be replaced by others that do so.
Open-Source Biotech post on open access science
January 26th, 2007 at 5:57 pm
As I have said before, this information should be publicly available. The funding mechanism for peer review needs to change. If the Journals want to stay in business they need to find a way to add value that doesn’t keep publicly funded information out away from the public…
January 28th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
[...] (it took about a week as I remember before HP capitulated - when they finally realized the best option was to admit the blogosphere was right and they were wrong). I wonder if that will happen this time. [...]
January 29th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
[...] I am not convinced of this idea. It seems to me a BS degrees in engineering should be a full degree [...]
November 3rd, 2007 at 8:17 pm
The opponents of open science are lobbying to keep scientific research funded by taxpayers unavailable to the public. As I have said before it is time to stop supporting those who attempt to stop scientific progress…
November 10th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
HHMI will require its scientists to publish their original research articles in scientific journals that allow the articles and supplementary materials to be made freely accessible in a public repository within six months of publication…