Hi,
"Who's against open access ?"
I'd say a not so naive answer would be
"None that can claim so."
What is the influence of wikipedia's journal article infobox in the popular
(and researchers, and funders, and editors, and publishers) mindsets ?
*Would an editor be reluctant to see his or her name associated with a
"paywalled, lucrative, not archiving friendly, poorly-reviewed, journal" ?*
I proposed updating wikipedian templates to fulfil wikipedian goal of
making knowledge more accessible, stressing out key characteristics for
journals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_journal#Add_Open_Access…
Please contribute in this orientation with editions of related templates
and infoboxes.
BR
Rudy
RP87
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*
Dear all,
I've seen ranging initiatives for making scientific literature more
accessible, from asking lower subscription prices, to no subscription - apc
strategies, to intensifying archiving etc. And I guess we'll have a
divergent view on each one of them. I've already mentioned in this list my
JSL proposal years ago and I'll remind it if requested. Though I'm still
convinced of this target, It clearly seems a too far first step for most in
accademia.
Today I'd like complete this range of strategies with this petition aiming
at making editorial boards to publically drop their lucrative titles and
start, from their current notability, concurrent free titles (diamond
model, copylefted).
Here is the petition, https://journauxscientifiqueslibres.wesign.it/en
Here is a video call for french speaker (english version incoming)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8PrMrJqsVhw
Feel free to comment, dissemin, edit (wiki links in petition description),
etc. ... and sign of course if you agree with it.
BR
Rudy
*CordialementRudy Patard <rudy.patard(a)gmail.com>*