3 ms·
Conflating OA with APCs isn't a nefarious PR campaign by the paywall publishers (disclaimer: I'm affiliated with one). It's the only way that anyone has shown i
by dougmccune 12y ago
Conflating OA with APCs isn't a nefarious PR campaign by the paywall publishers (disclaimer: I'm affiliated with one). It's the only way that anyone has shown is a sustainable model (so far). PLoS is the prime non-profit example, Hindawi is a for-profit OA example, and there are countless others that all focus on APCs being the mechanism to sustain OA publication (some call them different things, like PeerJ's membership model). Granted, I'm sure you can find examples of individual societies choosing to provide a high quality OA journal without the use of APCs, but that's the exception, not the rule. But overall the meteoric rise (and financial success) of non-profit PLoS seems like the biggest contributor to "OA = APCs".
- p4bl0 12y agoI really think what you say here is deeply ideological. As I explained in another comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8657030 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8657030), there exist ways to have high quality OA venues at a fraction of the cost per publication that are demanded by gold/APCs OA publishers. You can read more about these models by googling for Diamond Open Access and Platinum Open Access (and see very successful and large scale exemples such as SciELO and revues.org).