Taylor MP. Persistent myths about open access scientific publishing. The Guardian 2012 April 17
Recent articles published in The Guardian have drawn attention to lots of reasons why open access (OA) scientific publishing is reasonable, beneficial, and even inevitable. But some misconceptions have still been presented in two recent letters to the same journal. The author reinforces a steady situation regarding OA publishing, i.e. academic publishers do not pay peer reviewers, and lack of funds is no bar to publication in an OA journal. Probably the greatest impediment to more universal OA at the moment is researchers' fear that unless they place their work in high impact journals, they will be at a disadvantage when competing for grants.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/apr/17/persistent-myths-open-access-scientific-publishing
Recent articles published in The Guardian have drawn attention to lots of reasons why open access (OA) scientific publishing is reasonable, beneficial, and even inevitable. But some misconceptions have still been presented in two recent letters to the same journal. The author reinforces a steady situation regarding OA publishing, i.e. academic publishers do not pay peer reviewers, and lack of funds is no bar to publication in an OA journal. Probably the greatest impediment to more universal OA at the moment is researchers' fear that unless they place their work in high impact journals, they will be at a disadvantage when competing for grants.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2012/apr/17/persistent-myths-open-access-scientific-publishing
Comments