If you are looking for a short, easy-to-understand statement that gets absolutely everything about Open Access completely wrong, you can't do much better than this: Hidden cost of open access in Times Higher Education. Luckily, the commenters set it straight. So does Peter Suber, who also adds an important point:
The success of the OA movement means that every day newcomers hear about it for the first time. One of the burdens of that success is that many newcomers pick up and spread old myths about it. If Altbach isn't new to OA issues, then he's inexcusably careless with them, and his claim about peer review is one of the classic myths that newcomers have been picking up and spreading for years.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
The title of this post might be a bit misleading. I don't really think it's much of a question.
Of course it's ok to get paid to promote open access.
My university pays me to be a librarian. I have faculty status. I can decide what I think are the most important issues in my field. I can advocate…
Scholars who grew up with the internet are steadily replacing those that grew up without it. Scholars who expect to put everything they write online, who expect to find everything they need online, and who expect unlocked content that they may read, search, link, copy, cut/paste, crawl, print, and…
When technological or social changes start altering the business landscape in a particular industry, people involved in that business tend to respond in three general ways.
The visionaries immediately see where their world is going, jump to the front edge of it and make sure that the change is as…
I know that you know that I work for PLoS. So, I know that a lot of you are waiting for me to respond, in some way, to the hatchet-job article by Declan Bucler published in Nature yesterday. Yes, Nature and PLoS are competitors in some sense of the word (though most individual people employed by…
That's how zombies are born. There's an incredible willingness of some people to speak up about things they know little or nothing about. I recognise it's tempting, especially for people who grow up with the idea that we can do armchair psychoanalysis of people we don't know -- politicians and celebrities, not to mention neighbors, but we really need to try to control that impulse. I'm sure I fail at that at times, but I do try. Altbach gives no indication of trying at all; it's as though he simply heard the term -- nothing else, just the term -- and promptly wrote an article about it. No research beyond possible gossip with other uninformed people. And it is ironic, as one of the commenters pointed out, that his article would've failed peer review; it would've failed even casual review by a competent editor.
Altbach reaches dizzying heights of laziness by claiming that Open Access does away with peer review and is therefore no better than Wikipedia. Even a cursory review of Open Access publishers, not least PLoS, would have put that misconception snugly to bed. Happily, he gets skewered by the comments, the best of which is John Kirriemuir's: "Ah, sweet irony. If this article had undergone "peer review", or some other accuracy or quality checking critera, then it would never had seen the light of day..."
Well said Karen and I agree that Kirriemuir's comment is the best.