Content deleted Content added
Wil.runner (talk | contribs) m article has multiple issues: no references and spelling errors. Editors, please look here. Tags: Reverted Visual edit |
|||
Line 8:
'''Open access''' ('''OA''') is a set of principles and a range of practices through which nominally [[copyright]]able publications are delivered to readers free of access charges or other barriers.<ref name="suber overview">{{Cite web |last=Suber |first=Peter |title=Open Access Overview |url=https://legacy.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070519103647/http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm |archive-date=19 May 2007 |access-date=29 November 2014}}</ref> With open access strictly defined (according to the 2001 definition), or [[Gratis versus libre|libre]] open access, barriers to copying or reuse are also reduced or removed by applying an [[open license]] for copyright, which regulates post-publication uses of the work.<ref name="suber overview" />
The main focus of the open access movement has been on "[[peer review]]ed research literature", and more specifically on [[academic journal]]s.<ref name=":0">{{Cite web |last=Swan |first=Alma |date=2012 |title=Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access |url=https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190414001646/https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000215863 |archive-date=14 April 2019 |access-date=14 April 2019 |website=UNESCO}}</ref> This is because
* such publications [[academic journal publishing reform|have been]] a subject of [[serials crisis]], unlike [[newspaper]]s, [[magazine]]s and [[fiction writing]]. The main difference between these two groups is in [[demand elasticity]]: whereas an English literature curriculum can substitute ''[[Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone]]'' with a public ___domain alternative, such as ''[[Gulliver's Travels|A Voyage to Lilliput]],'' an [[emergency room]] [[physician]] treating a patient for a life-threatening [[urushiol]] poisoning cannot substitute the most recent, but [[paywalled]] review article on this topic<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Diedrich V, Zweerink K |title=Elder B. Plant Dermatitis |journal=Emerg Med Clin North Am. |date=2024 |volume=42 |issue=3 |pages=613–638 |doi=10.1016/j.emc.2024.03.001 |pmid=38925778 |url=https://www.emed.theclinics.com/article/S0733-8627(24)00041-5/abstract}}</ref> with a 90-year-old copyright-expired article<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Hill GA, Mattacotti V |title=The Toxic Principle of the Poison Ivy |journal=Journal of the American Chemical Society |date=1934 |volume=56 |issue=12 |pages=2736–2738 |doi=10.1021/ja01327a064 |bibcode=1934JAChS..56.2736H |url=https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ja01327a064}}</ref> that was published before the invention of [[prednisone]] in 1954.
Line 21:
There are different models of open access publishing and publishers may use one or more of these models.
===
Different open access types are currently commonly described using a colour system. The most commonly recognised names are "green", "gold", and "hybrid" open access; however, several other models and alternative terms are also used.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Simard |first1=Marc-André |last2=Ghiasi |first2=Gita |last3=Mongeon |first3=Philippe |last4=Larivière |first4=Vincent |date=2022-08-09 |editor-last=Baccini |editor-first=Alberto |title=National differences in dissemination and use of open access literature |journal=[[PLOS One]] |language=en |volume=17 |issue=8 |pages=e0272730 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0272730 |doi-access=free |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=9362937 |pmid=35943972|bibcode=2022PLoSO..1772730S }}</ref>
Line 68:
=== FAIR ===
{{Main|FAIR data}}
[[FAIR data|FAIR]] is an acronym for 'findable, accessible, interoperable and reusable', intended to more clearly define what is meant by the term 'open access' and make the concept easier to discuss.<ref name="FAIR principles 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Wilkinson |first1=Mark D. |last2=Dumontier |first2=Michel |last3=Aalbersberg |first3=IJsbrand Jan |last4=Appleton |first4=Gabrielle |last5=Axton |first5=Myles |last6=Baak |first6=Arie |last7=Blomberg |first7=Niklas |last8=Boiten |first8=Jan-Willem |last9=da Silva Santos |first9=Luiz Bonino |last10=Bourne |first10=Philip E. |last11=Bouwman |first11=Jildau |display-authors=4 |date=15 March 2016 |title=The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship |journal=Scientific Data |volume=3 |pages=160018 |bibcode=2016NatSD...360018W |doi=10.1038/sdata.2016.18 |oclc=961158301 |pmc=4792175 |pmid=26978244 |last12=Brookes |first12=Anthony J. |last13=Clark |first13=Tim |last14=Crosas |first14=Mercè |last15=Dillo |first15=Ingrid |last16=Dumon |first16=Olivier |last17=Edmunds |first17=Scott |last18=Evelo |first18=Chris T. |last19=Finkers |first19=Richard |last20=Gonzalez-Beltran |first20=Alejandra |last21=Gray |first21=Alasdair J.G. |last22=Groth |first22=Paul |last23=Goble |first23=Carole |last24=Grethe |first24=Jeffrey S. |last25=Heringa |first25=Jaap |last26='t Hoen |first26=Peter A.C |last27=Hooft |first27=Rob |last28=Kuhn |first28=Tobias |last29=Kok |first29=Ruben |last30=Kok |first30=Joost |last31=Lusher |first31=Scott J. |last32=Martone |first32=Maryann E. |last33=Mons |first33=Albert |last34=Packer |first34=Abel L. |last35=Persson |first35=Bengt |last36=Rocca-Serra |first36=Philippe |last37=Roos |first37=Marco |last38=van Schaik |first38=Rene |last39=Sansone |first39=Susanna-Assunta |last40=Schultes |first40=Erik |last41=Sengstag |first41=Thierry |last42=Slater |first42=Ted |last43=Strawn |first43=George |last44=Swertz |first44=Morris A. |last45=Thompson |first45=Mark |last46=van der Lei |first46=Johan |last47=van Mulligen |first47=Erik |last48=Velterop |first48=Jan |last49=Waagmeester |first49=Andra |last50=Wittenburg |first50=Peter |last51=Wolstencroft |first51=Katherine |last52=Zhao |first52=Jun |last53=Mons |first53=Barend|issue=1 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Wilkinson |first1=Mark D. |last2=da Silva Santos |first2=Luiz Olavo Bonino |last3=Dumontier |first3=Michel |last4=Velterop |first4=Jan |last5=Neylon |first5=Cameron |last6=Mons |first6=Barend |date=1 January 2017 |title=Cloudy, increasingly FAIR; revisiting the FAIR Data guiding principles for the European Open Science Cloud |journal=Information Services & Use |volume=37 |issue=1 |pages=49–56 |doi=10.3233/ISU-170824 |issn=0167-5265 |doi-access=free |hdl=20.500.11937/53669|hdl-access=free }}</ref> Initially proposed in March 2016, it has subsequently been endorsed by
== Features ==
Line 76:
Scholarly publishing invokes various positions and passions. For example, authors may spend hours struggling with diverse article submission systems, often converting document formatting between a multitude of journal and conference styles, and sometimes spend months waiting for peer review results. The drawn-out and often contentious societal and technological transition to Open Access and Open Science/Open Research, particularly across North America and Europe (Latin America has already widely adopted "Acceso Abierto" since before 2000<ref name="Alperin 2015">{{Cite web |title=Hecho En Latinoamérica. Acceso Abierto, Revistas Académicas e Innovaciones Regionales |url=http://www.clacso.org.ar/libreria-latinoamericana/buscar_libro_detalle.php?id_libro=988&campo=&texto= |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200806005445/http://www.clacso.org.ar/libreria-latinoamericana/buscar_libro_detalle.php?id_libro=988&campo=&texto= |archive-date=6 August 2020 |access-date=31 August 2020}}</ref>) has led to increasingly entrenched positions and much debate.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Vuong|first1=Quan-Hoang|date=2018|title=The (ir)rational consideration of the cost of science in transition economies |journal=Nature Human Behaviour|volume=2|issue=1|pages=5|doi=10.1038/s41562-017-0281-4|pmid=30980055 |s2cid=256707733 |doi-access=free}}</ref>
The area of (open) scholarly practices increasingly sees a role for policy-makers and research funders<ref name="Ross-Hellauer 2018">{{cite journal | doi=10.1177/2158244018816717 | title=Are Funder Open Access Platforms a Good Idea? | year=2018 | last1=Ross-Hellauer | first1=Tony | last2=Schmidt | first2=Birgit | last3=Kramer | first3=Bianca | journal=SAGE Open | volume=8 | issue=4 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref name="Vincent‐Lamarre 2016">{{Cite journal |last1=Vincent-Lamarre |first1=Philippe |last2=Boivin |first2=Jade |last3=Gargouri |first3=Yassine |last4=Larivière |first4=Vincent |last5=Harnad |first5=Stevan |year=2016 |title=Estimating Open Access Mandate Effectiveness: The MELIBEA Score |url=https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/1/MelibeaFIN4.pdf |url-status=live |journal=Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology |volume=67 |issue=11 |pages=2815–2828 |arxiv=1410.2926 |doi=10.1002/asi.23601 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160923015455/http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/370203/1/MelibeaFIN4.pdf |archive-date=23 September 2016 |access-date=28 August 2019 |s2cid=8144721}}</ref><ref name="Union 2019">{{Cite book |date=30 January 2019 |title=Future of Scholarly Publishing and Scholarly Communication : Report of the Expert Group to the European Commission. |publisher=Publications Office of the European Union |isbn=9789279972386 |url=https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190603183000/https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/464477b3-2559-11e9-8d04-01aa75ed71a1 |archive-date=3 June 2019 |access-date=28 August 2019}}</ref> giving focus to issues such as career incentives, research evaluation and business models for publicly funded research. [[Plan S]] and [[AmeliCA]]<ref>{{Cite web |last1=Aguado-López |first1=Eduardo |last2=Becerril-Garcia |first2=Arianna |date=2019-08-08 |title=AmeliCA before Plan S – The Latin American Initiative to develop a cooperative, non-commercial, academic led, system of scholarly communication |url=https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/08/08/amelica-before-plan-s-the-latin-american-initiative-to-develop-a-cooperative-non-commercial-academic-led-system-of-scholarly-communication/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191101025852/https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2019/08/08/amelica-before-plan-s-the-latin-american-initiative-to-develop-a-cooperative-non-commercial-academic-led-system-of-scholarly-communication/ |archive-date=2019-11-01 |access-date=2022-11-26 |website=Impact of Social Sciences}}</ref> (Open Knowledge for Latin America) caused a wave of debate in scholarly communication in 2019 and 2020.<ref name="Johnson 2019">{{Cite journal |last=Johnson |first=Rob |year=2019 |title=From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication |journal=Insights: The UKSG Journal |volume=32 |doi=10.1629/uksg.453 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|date=2020-09-01|title=The growth of open access publishing in geochemistry|url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666277920300010|journal=Results in Geochemistry|language=en|volume=1|article-number=100001|doi=10.1016/j.ringeo.2020.100001|issn=2666-2779|last1=Pourret|first1=Olivier|last2=Irawan|first2=Dasapta Erwin|last3=Tennant|first3=Jonathan P.|last4=Hursthouse|first4=Andrew|last5=Van Hullebusch|first5=Eric D.|bibcode=2020ResGc...100001P |s2cid=219903509}}</ref>
=== Licenses ===
| |||