Let's start by learning a little more about the Creative Commons license such as used by PLoS. To do so, we'll include a piece of media licensed under Creative Commons attribution (by) license.
We better attribute it: From Creative Commons, http://creativecommons.org/videos, found on Wikipedia, which is itself becoming Creative Commons (cc-by-sa: attribution and share alike), though currently GFDL. Okay, on to Open Access.
Green and Gold OA
Their are two basic paths to Open Access: the Green road and the Golden road. In Green Open Access, authors self-archive papers. Archiving post-publication is subject to copyright, while as pre-publication is simply a matter of journal policy. Most journals now allow pre-publication archiving -- Nature recently changed their policy to allow this. A long standing example in the physical sciences is arXiv.
Gold Open Access is the PLoS model, where researchers pay $1000 - $3000 to cover publication costs. Many journals use a hybrid model, where the authors have the option to pay and have their paper published as open access, see this list of journals accepting so called "sponsored articles" through Elsiver.
How big is Open Access?
Good question. NIH funded research requires it, as does Harvard.
Think bigger
Need More Openess? How about Open Peer Review? Check out Biology-direct, an open-source, open peer-review model. Authors solicit reviews from three board members and then can be published with or without revisions but with the reviewers comments and names included. Further alternative is Open Peer Commentary, where peer commentary on a target published article is published along with the author's response.
A natural extension of open publication is Open Text Books. Hear Richard Baraniuk discuss on TED talks, which use the cc-by-nd-nc (attribution, non-derivative, non-commercial):
How about all of science being open? Open Data and Open Notebooks? Check out the vision of Science Commons, and the example of Neurocommons.
0 comments:
Post a Comment