While following AHA tweets, I found the text and slides from a lecture about open access journals (or, more specifically, the OA movement, its implications, and discourse). The contents overall seemed sensible: OA has potential benefits and costs, and they should all be considered when discussing publishing models.
I am generally informed, but by no means deeply knowledgeable, about academic journal publishing. I have a sense of the debates, pressures on library budgets, and so forth. I’m not an academic, or an academic librarian, or involved in academic publishing. I don’t really have a dog in the fight, but I’m an animal lover so I’m quite interested in the outcome.
I thoroughly approve of the idea of finding data, analyzing it, and talking with stakeholders. My quibbles with the piece are either very minor or very fundamental, depending on one’s perspective. (Me? I consider them unrelated to the specific question of OA, but important for communication in general and particularly online, where you have people with varying backgrounds, expertise, and agendas engaging in conversation, and it can be tough to figure out who’s actually a dog, and whether it matters.) The tweet I saw (which I can’t find at the moment, so can’t quote directly) also called attention to the nature of the comments on the piece as a useful illustration of the problems of comment sections.
Continue reading “Not actually about open access”