Talk:Open access

Active discussions

Content that doesn't belong hereEdit

Today's huge addition of content has also added some stuff that does not appear to belong here, because it is not specific to OA. For example, "Correlation between impact factor and quality", which applies to subscription-based journals just as much as to OA ones. The same goes for the discussion of peer review or a discussion of "Representativeness of proprietary databases". We have articles on these subjects where this material could be merged, but it doesn't belong here. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes I agree, these sections as written are not obviously on the topic "open access". They might be elsewhere and are OA-adjacent but yes, I do not see the connection. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
The connection is that these were found to be the most debated topics on the matter of open access in a publication where you can read the methods too (also at https://peerj.com/preprints/27580/ with additional discussion). You might think that WoS, Scopus and JIF are not "part" of the topic of open access, but in practice whenever one discusses (gold) OA someone brings up "but is this journal in WoS/Scopus" or "what will my JIF be". I can agree that such questions are mistaken, but that's the world we live in, so we do need to have that information in an accessible way on this article.
I do agree that some of those sections can be better integrated with the rest of the article. They can also be trimmed, moving those parts which are not discussing OA directly. In some paragraphs, that's hard to disentangle, but I've re-read the two sections mentioned and I think I'll move about half of them to the other pages. Nemo 06:21, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • But none of this is specific to OA. Any subscription journal people will also ask "but is this journal in WoS/Scopus" or "what will my JIF be". The JIF, indexing, and peer review are issues that are essential for all academic publishing, not just OA. I would merge this stuff to the appropriate articles and link to that from here. --Randykitty (talk) 09:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
    • It is specific to OA because they are arguments used disproportionately in relationship with OA publishing. I already agreed some of the content can be moved, will do it in the coming days. Nemo 09:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd agree that some of the added sections could be better placed in full in other articles and just the OA-specific elements listed here (e.g. 'Views of peer review' would fit very well in the peer review article, with a portion retained here). I'm hoping to go through in the next few weeks and help integrate the new material in. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 23:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delayed response in getting around to this. I've now re-read through all the current sections (initial total 19k words, of which 14k were from the recent additions). I'm make a start by moving some of the sections that'd fit better into other articles and merging a few sections that go well with other info. Initial progress below:

  1. Merged much of Prevalent economic models into #Definitions, #Article processing charges and #Subsidized or no-fee
  2. Converted some of the notes that contain a single URL into inline citations
  3. Added archived versions for pages that might change (e.g. Nat Cummun's >$5000 APC!) and found a ref for eLife's APC costing.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! It's much easier to figure out a more effective presentation of the material after a second pair of eyes has gone through it and made some changes. I already spotted a few more unclear passages in the sections you refactored. Nemo 12:49, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Apologies for the delay. I've started to do a couple of further content section moves:

Will make another effort to move the editing forward in the coming week. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:05, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

I've done some further work integrating the new content (aiming to retain the OA-specific aspects) and also updating much of the old

I've also done some more updates of older content

  • For #Article_impact: I've split readership, citations, and altmetrics (with new summary image)
  • For #Citation_rate: there have now been enough studies that meta-analyses and reviews are available, so I've also focused more on these and removed the {{Primary sources}} tag.

I'm still unclear why there are so many 'notes' that are basically references. I also think that there's a bit of overall between the #Motivations and #Effects sections (since many of those effects are the motivations for many authors, publishers and funders). I hope it doesn't come across as being too harsh in the pruning but I'm aiming for greater readability and focus. Eventually I'd like to get the page down to maybe 4-6000 words (excluding references). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC) updated 06:15, 5 January 2020 (UTC) & 08:29, 5 January 2020 (UTC), 10:42, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The summarising has not been very successful in my opinion. Cutting away all the new content indiscriminately made the article less useful and the structure of the article less representative of modern discussions of open access. Nemo 06:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Article updatesEdit

Inspired by the overhauls of the Gene and Enzyme articles a few years ago, I'd love to have a general update on this article (xtools stats, pageview stats). A few people have been thinking about possible improvements that could be made in terms of structure and content in a this google document. People in the meeting agreed to post subsequent discussion on (or accessible via) this talkpage and start editing the wikipedia page. I'd love to get it up to a level where it could go through internal review (WP:GAN, WP:FAC) and external peer review (WP:JAN). We were also thinking of having some conference all meetups every couple of weeks to keep up momentum. Would love people to get involved (current participant list below). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:46, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Interested participants:

Voice meeting to discuss page 17-23 Feb 2020Edit

Poll to organising meeting time: https://doodle.com/poll/vn7bkiy67mnekqyu
Voice chat location: https://meet.jit.si/OpenAccessWikipedia
Meeting notes to be written: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14XabEoQ0FVMRvgvb7Kf0fPhQYQZ7W2qlnRZ8ZsaO7I8/edit#
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Consensus date & Time = 17 Feb 11pm UTC. Location = https://meet.jit.si/OpenAccessWikipedia. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 08:04, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
Meeting minutes here, with draft ideas for a diagram here. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 10:02, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of 966045253Edit

Anonymous editor from 68.144.192.39 and reversion of 966291239, "Older source was much better".

The same source was listed twice. The duplicate citation for was removed. It is not clear to me how duplicating the citation is better.

It was a mistake (I misread the diff) which was reversed a few minutes later. So what's the issue? Alexbrn (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Google's scholar's definition of Open AccessEdit

@Sylvain Ribault, Weirdly, Google Scholar isn't quite calculating compliance with funder mandates, most of which require an OA license, not just free-to-read. The tool only checks if the text is available ("We do not check if it has an open-access licence" [1]).

E.g. it's counting this free-to-read article (OUP uses an open access logo even when it's still under OUP's copyright) but the funder's policy requires "associated licence, such as a Creative Commons licence".

I still think it's notable, but have added a clarifier to the sentence. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:46, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Your clarifier is most welcome. My edit was indeed a bit rushed. Sylvain Ribault (talk) 16:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Return to "Open access" page.