Friday Fun: Six open access myths put to rest

It's been kind of a crazy week for me, so I haven't really had much of a chance to contribute to or even read a lot of the Open Access Week calls to arms out there right now.

So I thought I would kind of commandeer my Friday Fun silly lists habit and redirect that energy to open access.

So here it is, from Peter Suber:

Open access: six myths to put to rest

  1. The only way to provide open access to peer-reviewed journal articles is to publish in open access journals
  2. All or most open access journals charge publication fees
  3. Most author-side fees are paid by the authors themselves
  4. Publishing in a conventional journal closes the door on making the same work open access
  5. Open access journals are intrinsically low in quality
  6. Open access mandates infringe academic freedom

    This is true for gold open access but not for green. But if you believe that all open access is gold, then this myth follows as a lemma. Because only about one-third of peer-reviewed journals are open access, requiring researchers to submit new work to open access journals would severely limit their freedom to submit work to the journals of their choice. By contrast, green open access is compatible with publishing in non-open access journals, which means that green open access mandates can respect author freedom to publish where they please. That is why literally all university open access mandates are green, not gold. It's also why the green/gold distinction is significant, not fussy, and why myths suppressing recognition of green open access are harmful, not merely false.

Of course, read Suber's original article to get the detailed explanations of all the myths. And please do share the list widely with all your friends, relatives, contacts, faculty, librarians, and legislators.

Categories

More like this

So ScienceWoman and I will be sharing live-blogging duties today, at least until our batteries give out. We're both starting at the Open Access publishing session, although I was also intrigued by Peggy Kolm's session about science fiction on science blogs. I'll have to catch up with her later.…
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…
Even though I've been frightfully busy this week, I've been following the news about the launch of PRISM (Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine). I first saw it discussed in this post by Peter Suber, after which numerous ScienceBloggers piled on. If you have some time (and…
Philip Johnson makes some back-of-the-envelope calculations, very conservatively assuming that all OA journals are author-pay (not true) and all author fees for publishing are born by the Universities (not true) and concludes that even with such harsh handicapping, universities that switched to OA-…