Change is upon us and open access is coming. The Economist has published an article revising the big steps open access has taken since the first Budapest agreement in 2001, where the term was coined. While a lot has been done, especially in the last couple of years, there is still a long way to go, especially considering the small number of OA publications in social sciences and humanities.
These areas of research still mostly rely on monographs for shaping and sharing scholarship, shows a recent survey by JISC. Melissa Terras has written an article on her experiences with publishing monographs in the Guardian.
Glyn Moody covers another reason for open access in techdirt. Drawing from a debate on QuestionCopyright.org, the post reasons that copyright gets in the way of scientific debate, especially when the debate needs copyrighted data to prove a point. Read the full argument here.
According to Times Higher Education open access has had little or no impact on the profits of the world’s largest scientific, technology, engineering and mathematics publishers. This information is derived from an investors report released by Bernstein Research and republished by Richard Poynder earlier this week. Read the article by Paul Jump here.
While these profits for publishers seem easily permeable, the costs of subscription publishing is not. Stuart Lawson describes the need for transparency in subscription data and has collected all the caveats about data available right now in this article.
As of today, Internet Archaeology has followed in the footsteps of many others in becoming an open access journal. It is the final step in a process of the ever-hybrid journal becoming more and more accessible. Read about the journey here.