Talk:Open access

Editing for grad school project
Hi! I'm an library science grad student taking a look at this page as part of a Wikipedia editing assignment for a course on Information Policy. This page has been identified by our instructor as needing some work, both structurally and for minor issues. I'm going to be making some edits, most likely starting with working on wordiness and readability but I wanted to introduce myself as you may be seeing a lot of edits from a new user! I'm reviewing the talk page for areas that have been previously highlighted for improvement. Feel free to share priorities or feedback.~ ACBatSLIS (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

New book out March 2023
https://mitpress.mit.edu/9780262048002/athena-unbound/

I think this book tries to be a complete story of open access, and as such, should be a resource for developing this article. I do not yet have a copy.  Bluerasberry  (talk)  18:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Venn diagram
The "Venn diagram highlighting the key features of different types of open access in scholarly publishing" contains mistakes. For example Gold OA and Diamond OA are exclusive, with Gold OA restricted to "author pays", whereas the definition of Gold OA in the page specifies correctly:

The majority of gold open access journals charging APCs follow an "author-pays" model,[13] although this is not an intrinsic property of gold OA.

The diagram also includes two types of "Vanity press", neither of which are defined in the page nor in the source article. Marcrr (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree. The conflation of "gold" with "APC" is a long standing and frustrating mistake for many. If reproduced here, it should be explained that some people define "gold OA" as for-fee even though the label was not intended to mean that. Diprose, et al. reflect on this problem (https://doi.org/10.3998/jep.3398). They propose a less complicated set of labels without really resolving the problem that these labels are meant to describe both how things are paid for and what version they might be. They focus on the latter. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the diagram. There's no need to keep such obviously incorrect imagery. Nemo 18:48, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Why is FAIR mentioned in this article?
FAIR and open access have nothing to do with each other.

A FAIR object can in fact be not open access. They are two different concepts. It's bizarre to see FAIR included in an article on open access.

This could be seen as a personalised assertion, so to support this I refer to external sources including: 1. https://www.go-fair.org/resources/faq/ask-question-difference-fair-data-open-data/

"FAIR is not equal to Open: The ‘A’ in FAIR stands for ‘Accessible under well defined conditions’. There may be legitimate reasons to shield data and services generated with public funding from public access... None of these [FAIR] principles necessitate data being “open” or “free”."

I propose therefore deleting the section on FAIR in this article. Metacladistics (talk) 08:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Open Library of Humanities
I came across this opinion piece today & then went to https://www.openlibhums.org. I am not sure where to put this, but I thought of this talk page as a starting point. Perhaps someone can point me to a better place to post this. Peaceray (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2024 (UTC)