Abstract
There is a broad difference of opinion among the many stakeholders in scholarly publishing about how to precisely define open access publishing. Are “open access” and “open data” what we mean by open? Does “open” mean anything else? Does it mean “to make available,” or “to make freely available in a particular format?” Is a clearer definition needed (or maybe just better education on the current definition)? Why or why not? At present, some stakeholders see public access as being an acceptable stopping point in the move toward open access. Others see “open” as requiring free and immediate access with articles being available in CC-BY format. The range of opinions between these extremes is vast. How should these differences be decided? Who should decide? Is it possible to make binding recommendations (and how)? Is consensus necessary? What are the consequences of the lack of consensus?
Cite
CITATION STYLE
Anderson, R., Denbo, S., Graves, D., Haigh, S., Hill, S., Kalfatovic, M., … Wise, A. (2016). What Is Open? Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings, 1. https://doi.org/10.13021/g8x88s
Register to see more suggestions
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.