Libraries subscribe digitally to academic journals – and are left with nothing in the stacks when the contract expires.
Digital publishing hasn't resulted in the free and open access to information many envisioned. Universities are increasingly fed up with a system they see as charging them for their own scholars' labor.
There’s huge societal value in opening up access to knowledge resources.
Globally, the scholarly publishing system is in dire need of financial and legislative change.
Announced on May 15 2018, the government’s Research Investment Strategy directs $1.9 billion towards hard infrastructure.
"Soft" infrastructure includes the services, policies or practices that keep academic research working and open. Without a funded, coordinated national approach the private sector may take control.
Soon you could be looking at microscopic creatures with your mobile phone.
Even though you don’t think of your mobile phone as being anything like a microscope, it’s got almost all the parts you need.
Research findings are published in peer-reviewed academic journals, many of which charge universities subscription fees.
Universities in New Zealand spent close to US$15 million on subscriptions to just four publishers in 2016, data that was only released following a request to the Ombudsman.
Data should be open, shareable - but not at the expense of African researchers and communities.
A focus on collaboration among African universities and research institutions is crucial in developing national policies that meet the principles of open data while keeping it safe from exploitation.
Locking articles away behind a paywall stifles access.
In our institutions of higher education and our research labs, scholars first produce, then buy back, their own content. With the costs rising and access restricted, something's got to give.
There is a huge appetite for science and other research - so why aren’t more academic publications truly ‘open access’?
Could the real open access please stand up? If more research was published according to true open access principles, we'd see better application of evidence for everyone's benefit.
A critical part of attaining universal health coverage is access to published research.
Clinicians can do their jobs better when they have quick, open access to scientifically rigorous research.
South Africa has become the first country on the continent to purchase a national licence to the Cochrane library -- giving everyone access to evidence-based information about health care.
Opening up data and materials helps with research transparency.
REDPIXEL.PL via Shutterstock.com
Partly in response to the so-called 'reproducibility crisis' in science, researchers are embracing a set of practices that aim to make the whole endeavor more transparent, more reliable – and better.
The beautiful Chinese cave gecko, or Goniurosaurus luii, is highly prized by poachers.
Biologists have a centuries-old tradition of publishing on rare and endangered species. But poachers are using open-access information to target valuable and fragile new species.
The number of predatory scientific journals has exploded in recent years.
A leading website that monitored predatory open access journals has closed. This will make it harder to keep tabs on this corrosive force within science.
CERN isn’t only breaking ground in physics, but also in open access to science.
It's not enough to do groundbreaking research if the results are kept from the public. So CERN is making its results available to everyone via open access, showing how science should be done.
Obama annually welcomed students to the White House with their Science Fair projects.
AP Photo/Susan Walsh
The outgoing president leaves behind some solid accomplishments in the world of science, tech and medicine. But the biggest departure from his predecessors might have been in his approach.
Should the public pay to read research?
The public pays for academic research and then again to read the published results of that research. A new initiative proposes a radical Open Access model. Can it work?
Research shows that Wikipedia is one of the most read sources of medical information by the general public across the world.
Medical entries on Wikipedia are widely consulted across the world. Doctors and medical researchers need to make efforts to ensure the content on the online collaborative encyclopedia is accurate.
Scientists themselves may be the key to finding the right balance.
Scales image via www.shutterstock.com.
The public loses when their only choices are inaccessible, impenetrable journal articles or overhyped click-bait about science. Scientists themselves need to step up and help bridge the divide.
More medical experts should contribute to Wikipedia to ensure its health pages are accurate.
The academic medical community largely views Wikipedia with suspicion. But some traditional journals are starting to take the site more seriously – and some journals work very closely with it.
Sci-Hub, a free online repository of academic articles, is the subject of a battle at the heart of open access.