LIBLICENSE-L Archives

LibLicense-L Discussion Forum

LIBLICENSE-L@LISTSERV.CRL.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
LibLicense-L Discussion Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 21 Oct 2013 19:49:05 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
From: Richard Poynder <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2013 15:55:52 +0100

To what extent should we expect publishers who profess a commitment to
Open Access to be open in other ways too? This is a question often
raised in discussions about OA. Some, for instance, argue that OA
ought to go hand-in-hand with open peer review (particularly in light
of the recent “sting” of OA journals by Science). Others have argued
that OA publishers have a duty to be more open in the management of
their business. And it has been suggested that OA publishers should be
more transparent about their finances. But what about when publishers
make use of social media like blogs?

How transparent should they be about who is behind the site, and what
their objective is? This thought occurred to me recently when I was
trying to find out who runs the Open Science blog.

Details here:

http://poynder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/lets-be-open-about-open-access.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2