Buyer beware! Not everything in science publishing that calls itself Open Access actually is so.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
Williams College - The Purple Cow goes national: ESPN College Football GameDay commercial looms
"In 2007, when I was but a wee sophomore at Williams College, ESPN College GameDay visited our campus marking the first and possibly last time they visit a Division III school. I thought that would…
I'm not one for posting publisher press releases on this blog (and embargoed ones at that!) but sometimes you just have to try something a little different. And this is such an occasion.
Below is the press release for a new science publishing startup called PeerJ. It is founded by Peter Binfield,…
Nature (left) vs. OpenAccess A number of bloggers, including myself, had recently responded to a news item in Nature by suggesting that anti-OpenAccess and anti-PLoS position taken by the author, Delcan Butler, constituted an attack of one company against another. How silly of us to have done…
SciBling Bora (aka coturnix) at Blog Around the Clock has scored a major coup for Open Access publishing today. Fittingly the subject matter is a dinosaur, an apt symbol for the new nail in the coffin of traditional scientific publishing that the paper represents. Bora is the Online Community…
Have you paid any attention to the whole free software/open source software community over the years?
There has been a lot of talk over the years about how "free" and "zero cost" don't mean the same thing. Well, "zero cost" is one definition of free, but it's not the full definition.
In the open source software community, these are often shorthanded as "free as in speech" and "free as in beer."
Free Software as defined by the FSF (and similarly Open Source Software as defined by the OSI) is not necessarily zero cost. However, it is "libre" free, in that there are broad permissions on reuse and redistribution of the software. This is "free" similar to the use of the word in "free speech."
"Free beer" is zero cost beer. (Although I think I did once see a "free as in speech beer", which was a freely redistributable recipe for brewing beer.)
It's so sad that the two meanings are caught up in the same word, because they mean very different things. And, alas, in the consumerist culture of the USA, "zero cost" is the first thing, and too often the only thing, people think of when they hear the word "free."
-Rob
Rob, I'm not sure this situation is directly comparable. The situation here as I understand it is one of zero cost, with extremely restrictive conditions on reuse and redistribution. It doesn't meet the definition of an open access publication as I, and I suspect most librarians, would apply it.
I think it's both comparable and not. It's comparable in that there is a confusion about the word "free," which has at least two different meanings in both cases. It is different in that the right to modify is much more important for the Free Software movement than for Open Access in publishing, although the latter retains that right, too. It's most important elements, IMO, are that it is permissionless, the author retains rights and barriers to access are extremely low. I agree with coturnix and others that the CMAJ claim is misleading and in my view possibly dishonest.