4 ms·

This sounds like apologia from a big closed publisher (AAAS) explaining why open-access is supposedly bad. See, sometimes open-access journals fold, and when th

This sounds like apologia from a big closed publisher (AAAS) explaining why open-access is supposedly bad. See, sometimes open-access journals fold, and when that happens, nobody knows what happens to the articles. But they'd like you to ignore two inconvenient facts: First, that traditional closed publishers effectively lose all articles by default by this metric! And second, that the Internet Archive, itself open-access, was essential to conducting the study in the first place!

mordae 6y ago
This.
isido 6y ago
I have been involved in the same projects furthering open access within Finnish universities as the corresponding author has, and I think the aim of the study is not make OA look bad, but to make it better by finding its shortcomings and then fixing them.
- l_matthia 6y ago
  Exactly. We don't see OA as the problem. OA solves many issues that exist with traditional publishing and also makes it easier to preserve content in the first place. The problem lies with decreasing library budgets, rising subscription prices, and that preservation services often are not suitable for smaller OA journals. LOCKSS provides a free option for publishers to join, but only accepts a limited number of OA publishers (https://www.lockss.org/use-lockss/publishers https://www.lockss.org/use-lockss/publishers). A couple years ago the PKP launched their preservation service, which we're really excited about as it also offers free preservation (for OJS journals) and would help esp. those smaller journals that otherwise couldn't afford to enroll into preservation schemes.
- Nemo_bis 6y ago
  I think the criticism is not about the paper, only about the article describing it.
jmmcd 6y ago
Counter-point: we all know that "free" internet services are flaky. Eg many people prefer to pay for email, for reliability. This article introduces the perspective that OA journals are a bit like ad-supported email. I don't really agree that traditional publishers lose all articles by default by this metric. I think there is some value in a reliable record of the journal itself, as more than the sum of its parts. Still, my preferred solution for all of this is like JMLR -- very low-cost and open access, and it has reliability by virtue of association with a top university, and prestige by virtue of its editorial board (which becomes self-fulfilling).
- Nemo_bis 6y ago
  Commercial publishing giants with subscription journals are ad-supported too, nowadays. You find ads in the weirdest places. https://mamot.fr/@nemobis/104755721369049700 https://mamot.fr/@nemobis/104755721369049700
mturmon 6y ago
AAAS is a non-profit, and Science subscriptions are really cheap — like US$100 for a year of a weekly magazine. They are not money-grubbers, and they are very distinct from Springer, Elsevier, and Nature in this regard. I think they legit view preservation of the scientific record as within their provenance to cover.

mordae 6y ago

This.

isido 6y ago

I have been involved in the same projects furthering open access within Finnish universities as the corresponding author has, and I think the aim of the study is not make OA look bad, but to make it better by finding its shortcomings and then fixing them.

l_matthia 6y ago
Exactly. We don't see OA as the problem. OA solves many issues that exist with traditional publishing and also makes it easier to preserve content in the first place. The problem lies with decreasing library budgets, rising subscription prices, and that preservation services often are not suitable for smaller OA journals. LOCKSS provides a free option for publishers to join, but only accepts a limited number of OA publishers (https://www.lockss.org/use-lockss/publishers https://www.lockss.org/use-lockss/publishers). A couple years ago the PKP launched their preservation service, which we're really excited about as it also offers free preservation (for OJS journals) and would help esp. those smaller journals that otherwise couldn't afford to enroll into preservation schemes.
Nemo_bis 6y ago
I think the criticism is not about the paper, only about the article describing it.

jmmcd 6y ago

Counter-point: we all know that "free" internet services are flaky. Eg many people prefer to pay for email, for reliability. This article introduces the perspective that OA journals are a bit like ad-supported email. I don't really agree that traditional publishers lose all articles by default by this metric. I think there is some value in a reliable record of the journal itself, as more than the sum of its parts. Still, my preferred solution for all of this is like JMLR -- very low-cost and open access, and it has reliability by virtue of association with a top university, and prestige by virtue of its editorial board (which becomes self-fulfilling).

Nemo_bis 6y ago
Commercial publishing giants with subscription journals are ad-supported too, nowadays. You find ads in the weirdest places. https://mamot.fr/@nemobis/104755721369049700 https://mamot.fr/@nemobis/104755721369049700

mturmon 6y ago

AAAS is a non-profit, and Science subscriptions are really cheap — like US$100 for a year of a weekly magazine. They are not money-grubbers, and they are very distinct from Springer, Elsevier, and Nature in this regard. I think they legit view preservation of the scientific record as within their provenance to cover.