Der österreichische Wissenschaftsfonds (FWF) hat seine Open-Access-Policy erneuert. Mit einer klaren Verpflichtung, mit der Kappung von APC, mit Verschärfungen bei Forschungsdaten, aber auch mit der Ausweitung über Zeitschriftenartikel hinaus setzt der FWF Zeichen in Sachen Open Access. In Ergänzung zur ersten positiven Rezeption gibt es aber auch problematische Stellen.

Der erste Open Access Newsletter der VSNU ist erschienen. Mit minimalen Zusatzkosten schnell zu Gold OA bei etablierten Journals.

I wrote last week that I can’t support Nature’s new broken-access initiative for two reasons: practically, I can’t rely on it; and philosophically I can’t abide work being done to reduce utility. More recently I read a post on Nature’s blog: Content sharing is *not* open access and why NPG is committed to both. It’s well worth reading: concise, clear and helpful.

I’ve just given an email interview for Abby Clobridge, for a forthcoming short column in Online Searcher. I give many of these interviews and often very little material from it gets used, so I asked Abby if it was okay if I reposted what I wrote. Her response: “go for it” – thanks Abby! So here’s my thoughts on Generation Open, for a readership of librarians and information professionals:

It’s been a week since Nature announced what they are now calling “read-only sharing by subscribers” — a much more accurate title than the one they originally used on that piece, “Nature makes all articles free to view” [old link, which now redirects]. I didn’t want to leap straight in with a comment at the time, because this is a complex issue and I felt it better to give my thoughts time to percolate.

Der Verlag des renommierten Nature-Journals, die Nature Publishing Group (NPG), feiert sich selbst.

Nach 7 Jahren mit 31 Ausgaben schliesst das kanadische Journal Open Medicine. Das Journal entstand 2007 nach Streitigkeiten des Editorial Boards zur inhaltlichen Unabhängigkeit des Journal of the Canadian Medical Association , CMAJ. Im Editorial der letzten Ausgabe erwähnen die Herausgeberinnen die fehlende finanzielle Nachhaltigkeit als Hauptgrund.

[Guest post from Lisa O’Sullivan, Director, Center for the History of Medicine and Public Health]{style=“font-family: "arial" , "sans-serif"; mso-fareast-font-family: "Times New Roman"; mso-fareast-language: EN-GB;”} [By now it’s axiomatic that the digital world poses new opportunities and challenges for researchers, libraries, educational institutions, and publishers, which must be engaged with digital formats in a sustained and

Nature has announced a press release about a new scheme they’ve come up with to legalise begging to view research.

Despite the flagrant trolling of its title, Nature ’s recent opinion-piece Open access is tiring out peer reviewers is mostly pretty good. But the implication that the rise of open-access journals has increased the aggregate burden of peer-review is flatly wrong, so I felt obliged to leave a comment explaining why. Here is that comment, promoted to a post of its own (with minor edits for clarity):