Talk:Open access journal

Name debate
I am absolutely amazed (and shocked) at what has happened to the (formerly) Open Access page that was being carefully built up and updated by the leaders of the Open Access movement. And first, yes, the Open Access (OA) movement is a movement, and, yes, it does have proponents and opponents. But OA is also a concept, defined in 2001 by the Budapest Open Access Initiative. And it is also a real, concrete phenomenon, that has been growing rapidly and worldwide ever since 2001. By the same token Open Source and Creative Commons are movements, with one or more organisations associated with them.

Although I haven't the time or the energy to go through all the discussion that seems to have led up to what happened to the OA page, I infer that someone suggested it was a partisan page, and that there were opposing points of view too. That is fine; but the right way to handle that is to add sections that contain critiques, or even to create and link a page that is explicitly dedicated to critiques and opposition to OA.

But what has been done instead is the worst possible thing: OA has been deleted as an entry altogther, and replaced by a redirect to "Open Access Publishing," which contains new and mostly irrelevant material about publishing. The original OA content (I am not sure whether it is all of it, or some was modified or deleted) was instead renamed "Open Access Journal".

Without making this comment too much longer I will try to give an exact analogy with what doing this means, in an encyclopedia. But first, I have to define OA, because that is what this is about: OA is free online access to peer-reviewed journal articles. (There are wider targets for OA too, but so far, most of the focus is on the 2.5 million articles published annually in the world's 24,000 peer reviewed journals.)

So far it may sound as if it might not be such a bad idea to rename OA "OA Publishing" or "OA Journal." But there is a profound and fundamental reason why that would not only be incorrect but extremely misleading to anyone trying to understand OA and the historic processes afoot in the first decade of this millennium: For OA is merely the condition of free online access to journal articles. Publishing in an OA journal (OA publishing), however, is only one of the two ways for an article to achieve this condition (i.e, being OA, freely accessible online). The other way -- and it is by far the bigger and faster and surer way of achieving OA -- is for the author to " self-archive" the article (i.e., deposit it in an online repository that provides free access to it). This is called OA self-archiving, and it is definitely not a form of OA publishing; nor are the journals in which such self-archived articles are published OA journals: They are just ordinary journals.

Now the analogy: To subsume the definition and history of "OA" under the definition and history of "OA Publishing" or "OA Journals" is like subsuming the definition and history of "racing" under "swimming" (I deliberately choose the less widespread and typical aquatic form of racing to show what subsuming it under swimming would do to the other form of racing, namely, "running" -- and for the generic concept of "racing" itself.) A more dramatic example way to put it would be to define "international relations" under "warfare" (with "diplomacy" merely being a subentry for "warfare"; or defining "human origins" under "creation" (with "evolution" being just a subentry under "creation").

There is already an entry for "(OA) self archiving," and it is fine to have an entry for "OA publishing" and for "OA journal" too. But nothing could be worse, or more partisan, or more misleading, historically, factually and conceptually, than to list "OA" as a subentry or subset of "OA publishing" or "OA journals."

The current (new) "OA publishing" entry, by the way, is extremely partisan, vague, and uninformative, but I am sure the specialists in OA publishing will remedy that, once it is indeed the entry for OA publishing, and not for OA.

But the entry for OA must be restored, as the generic entry for OA, and not subsumed under either of the two ways of achieving OA.

I am not sure how to fix things again, so OA, OAP and OAJ are all separate entries rather than redirects to one another.

And once OA is OA again, and not OAJ, the very first paragraph needs to be changed, to restore it to the generic OA entry, and not OAJ.

Stevan Harnad Harnad 23:23, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Although I completely disagree with User:Harnad about the relative merits of open archiving and open access journals, I agree that the change of name is completely wrong, & I have objected several times both yesterday and today to the editor who did so. There are two routes to OA--that at least is something we all agree, and the main article on OA should treat both equally. We cannot expect it to decide the question, but it certainly cannot ignore it. And it should not prejudge it by using a over-specific name. I do not think the editor involved was intending to prejudge, just that he did not fully understand the vocabulary we use.
 * I believe one of the reasons motivating the change was the redirect problem from the Open Access page. OA has acquired a number of additional meanings, some somewhat related, some less so. (For example, it seems to be used for open access by patients to investigational drugs.)
 * The changes will bea little complicated, because I will have to restore text from previous versions, but i think I know how to make them, and I will do so tonight. I do ask that this not be complicated by others trying to make the same changes at the same time, and I've put a standard notice on the article page to say so. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC).
 * forgot to sign--sorry DGG 23:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This page
This page is now the restored page for open access journals, before the recent renamings and changes. However, not all the many improvements made during the pasty few days have been incorporated. They will be. Some of the text in here duplicates the text in open access; this is temporary, and will also be corrected in the next few days. Please help by making any changes you think good, but please do not change the basic structure without consultation on this page. The entirely appropriate feelings expressed above indicate why such discussion is necessary. its been a long job, but undoubtedly this article page and related articles will be much improved by the end of it all. . DGG 07:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Recent changes
The rationale for moving material around was:
 * The "open access" and "open access publishing" articles overlapped a great deal. I appreciate the differences between the "open access movement" and "open access publishing" in the sense of publishing on a non-pay-for-access model.  However, it does not seem like a useful distinction to make to the point of needing two separate articles - the two articles would be largely redundant.  I was thinking "open access publishing" was a good title because it disambiguates from "OpenAccess" and other things on Open access (disambiguation), but if you want to put it under "open access" instead, because this is the adjective phrase common to both the movement and the publishing model and other things, that would be great.
 * There are forms of open access publishing that have nothing to do with academic journals; the "open access" page needs to cover these in addition to academic journals, which have gotten most of the attention. The recommended Article size is no more than around 30K.  Due to the volume of material, I simply moved almost everything having to do with academic journals into open access journal.  Perhaps more needed to be left behind in the main article due to the prominence of this application.

Whether or not "self archiving" is a form of "open access" seems to be disputed, therefore Wikipedia should not take a position on it.

We should certainly not have articles titled both Open access (publishing) and open access publishing (which is currently the case) as this is too confusing.

Proponents of open access are certainly welcome to edit those articles, but should keep Conflict of interest guidelines in mind, and should remember that because of the Neutral Point of View, policy, Wikipedia articles cannot appear to be advocating on behalf of the open access movement. -- Beland 21:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * very true, nor can they appear to advocate any one segment of it. DGG 23:34, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename to Open Access Journals
The current name is not grammatically correct, which is rather annoying and unprofessional. OptimistBen 08:48, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
 * the descriptive name for such a publication is the singular, as in PLOS is a o.a. journal, not PLOS is an o.a. journals. Yes, it sounds awkward, but it conforms to the WP MOSDGG (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2007 (UTC)


 * No, it is not grammatically correct because in this case we are not referring to a singular journal, we are referring to the journals collectively. Sorry, you're wrong. And it is PLOS is "an o.a. journal", not PLOS is "a o.a. journal". See a and an. OptimistBen 20:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * yep, you're right about a and an. -- that's a matter of grammar.  But the article on Scholary journals is Scholarly journal, not Scholarly journals and similarly throughout wikipedia,  as a matter of consistent style. Logic and grammar have nothing much to do with it. Personally, I would have chosen it the other way around, but I wasn't here when the choice was made back in the beginning. Please check Naming conventions, item 1.2. There are some exceptions, but this article is in any case not about the set of oajs, but about the concept and nature of an oaj. Its should match other articles in the general subject, and they all use the singular.Consider the overall set of articles on publications before wanting to change this one. DGG (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, guess you're right! Still sounds awkward. Thanks. OptimistBen 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

financial situation of OA and The Other systems
There are a lot of another free journal management systems, but I think there are some financial support for OJS etc. Also it looks like that the sentences in this article is affected from this financial situation. Please add other ones like african online journals, scopemed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.54.77.100 (talk) 21:34, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

debate
The structure and content of the debate section is very odd. There is a list of "imaginary" proponents that is implied to have wishes aligning with OA - a very strange way to construct an argument. The opposing arguments are not done in the same way and they so poorly written that they almost appear as straw man arguments. --Thorseth (talk) 07:53, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I totally agree, this disposition with pros and cons in form of a list makes it very difficult to expand the article or even draw conclusions. Someone came up with con arguments, which are not even evident. There is a very good paper out by BMC medicine, which compares the impact of OA journals to those of regular subscription journals. A-2 year impact factor was measured, and journals across a wide range of disciplines and business models were subjects of this study. Open access versus subscription journals: a comparison of scientific impact. I propose to rewrite the section “debate” entirely based on this recent publication. Whatever is relevant will remain, but it will be written as a discourse, with necessary conclusions. Osterluzei (talk) 01:53, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This report from ESA debates some OA issues that can support editing the Debate section.Zorahia (talk) 17:52, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hyphen or not?
Given the recurrent moving of this page from "open-access journal" to "open access journal"" and back, I have started a discussion here see update below in order to settle this issue. --Randykitty (talk) 18:37, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where that discussion is, it seems to have been archived. But in keeping with other open access article titles, I believe the hyphen should be removed. -Pete (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
 * So do I! I think it was just one person who was very insistent on it being hyphenated. the term 'open access' just isn't hyphenated in common usage. I've removed the hyphen from the phrase in almost every other Wikipedia article where I find it mentioned and no-one else has complained. We don't want an edit war, but I think there is no ground for it being hyphenated. Lawsonstu (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * It's here. Seems like there is consensus to leave out the hyphen and move this article back to open access journal. --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

And as long as we're on the topic of collaborating around "things open," let me plug our discussion in a couple days about WP:WikiProject Open! ;) 0Pete (talk) 02:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The discussion is archived at Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_118, as the link above expired.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please note that Category:Open access archives was speedily moved to Category:Open-access archives. --Randykitty (talk) 16:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * . See discussion. --Randykitty (talk) 18:30, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merger with open access

 * Strongly oppose This was proposed before in 2009, and the reasons for keeping the articles separate remain the same. The Open access article is about the concept of open access, while this article (Open access journal) is about one particular route for achieving open access, namely through publishing open access journals. Self-archiving in repositories is the other most common method, and is very different and requires a different article. - Lawsonstu (talk) 08:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 July 2014

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 03:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Open access journal → Open-access journal – Notwithstanding the above, hyphenation aids parsing, especially when scanning a text. Sardanaphalus (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or  , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.


 * Oppose per the above discussion. In addition (so this is not why I am opposing any more, but an additional comment), renaming would need to be done consistently and we have a bunch of articles all using "open access xxx" instead of "open-access xxx" in their title (and countless others where this is in the text). --Randykitty (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per User:Randykitty. After viewing (and participating in) debates about this many times over the last couple of years, I don't think we'll ever see consistency across different articles on this issue. Therefore I would prefer leaving it as it currently is. Plus I do strongly prefer leaving out the hyphen anyway; both variations are commonly used, open access probably slightly more so, but open access is a noun phrase so an open access journal is a journal which is open access. - Lawsonstu (talk) 15:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. "Open, access journal!" is the only meaning I can see for what we have. Red Slash 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose Adding the hyphen is contrary to the way this concept is written in most sources. Wikipedia forums are not supposed to make change to the way things should be written, but rather reflect how things already are written. Lots of other people have chosen to write this "open access journal". One could note that "open-source software" is usually written with the hyphen. Perhaps someday Open Knowledge will produce a manual or style, or perhaps anyone here would like to write a style guide for them and suggest they adopt it. I expect they would appreciate that and if they ever issued guidance I would recommend that it be followed.  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

In the body of article
I'd like to remove the dash in "open-access journal" occurring in the body of article; your thoughts? Fgnievinski (talk) 16:43, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Matching the article title: a no-brainer I would say. --Randykitty (talk) 16:48, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fgnievinski (talk) 19:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Open access taxonomy and metrics
Even without cite sources (to adopt another "taxonomic framework" for the article), using the present approach, we can enhance it... There are a basic classification {"entirely open access", "delayed open access", "hybrid open access"}, and a lot of possible sub-classes for "hybrid open access journals".

The article's text need some organization (show structure of classes), some metrics (ex. about "delayed open access") and add some more usual classes. The metrics is necessary to characterize the "degree of open access" of "non entirely open access" journals, because many are non-representative.

Example:
 * Entirely open access.
 * Delayed open access: need metrics. Is characterized by "retrospective openess time" (ex. 1 year? 70 years?) and percentual of volume (number of issues or articles) that are open in nowadays. Example: the Royal Society Journal is open access with the rule "more than 70 years ago", that is no little when we check the volume, ~60% of the retrospective journal content.
 * Hybrid content open access: many variations,
 * by article's classification:
 * Journals with research articles open access
 * Journals with some research articles open access
 * .. Journals with (all) non-research articles open access
 * .. Journals with some non-research articles open access:
 * ... Journals with brief-report articles open access
 * ... Journals with editorial articles open access
 * ... Journals with book-review articles open access
 * by article's part: a lot of "closed journals" are adopting this kind of openess today (!),
 * With figures and equations in open access
 * With "first pages" in open access
 * With "random sampling pages" in open access
 * by article's format: as google and others are doing with books, some are doing with journals,
 * ... with image (low quality scan) open access ...

The intersections of "pure classes" may be listed separately,
 * Hybrid content and time open access: journals with some articles open access and the other delayed access...
 * ... Journals with some (brief-report, letter and editorial) non-research articles open access
 * ... Journals with figures in low quality image open access ...

--Krauss (talk) 11:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal
Would it be appropriate to mention Wikiversity Journal, which now has two open access journals? It's up to you, we have no cited references, and I am on the board of both and creator of the latter, so it would be a severe COI for me to insert these links. On the other hand, both journals are interested in expanding the number of such journals, and using them to enhance Wikipedia.--Guy vandegrift (talk) 20:49, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikiversity Journal of Medicine
 * Second Journal of Science