Re: Tracey Caldwell, OA in the humanities badlands, Information World
Review, June 4, 2008
http://www.iwr.co.uk/information-world-review/features/2218215/oa-humanities-badlands
Yet another article that misses the main point of OA, and completely
overlooks its current active growth region: Green OA self-archiving
(by authors, in their own Institutional Repositories [IRs]) of
articles published in conventional (non-OA) journals -- and
institutional and funder Green OA self-archiving mandates.
http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/policysignup/
Not a word about any of this in this article, which, like most
articles about OA in the past seven years, is fixated on Gold OA
journal publishing, as if that were primarily or exclusively what "OA"
meant.
We hear about funding problems in the social sciences and humanities,
about ignorance and resistance to OA, about concerns about paying
publication charges to Gold OA journals, and about experiments with
"Overlay Journals," performing peer review on self-archived
unrefereed, unpublished drafts.
But not a word about Green OA, which is about providing OA to
published, refereed journal articles by self-archiving them.
There are absolutely no science versus humanities/social science
differences in this regard. All journal articles, in all disciplines,
can and should be self-archived in their authors' IRs. The majority
can also be made OA immediately; the rest can be made almost-OA for
the time being, with the institutional repository's "email eprint
request" button fulfilling all user needs webwide during any access
embargo.
Received on Wed Jun 04 2008 - 23:29:49 BST