It is a lot easier for a new, born-digital journal to start or convert to open access than is the case for a journal that has been publishing for more than a century. If you agree with me that nothing could be finer for open access than having venerable old journals with established reputations move to open access, let's re-consider some of our actions in this light.
For example, the DOAJ application form requires a Yes / No answer to the question: Does the journal have article processing charges (APCs)? It is not clear to me that a long-standing journal still publishing in print with print-based page charges can accurately answer either Yes or No to this question. Similarly, the DOAJ application form requires an answer to the question "Does the journal allow reuse and remixing of its content, in accordance with a CC license?". The response choices are the CC licenses, No, or Other. For a journal with a century-plus track record, answering this question correctly with one of the CC licenses would require communicating with all authors from the beginning of the copyright period to the date of conversion to CC licensing. This would be a massive undertaking. For journals like this, the only options may be No or Other. This could actually push journals in the opposite direction from the intention here. An example of language on what looks like old-fashioned print page and colour charges rather than OA APC from the apparently 123-year-old Anthropological Science is posted here: http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/2015/05/19/oa-apc-page-charges-and-dilemmas-for-long-standing-traditional-journals/ best, -- Dr. Heather Morrison Assistant Professor École des sciences de l'information / School of Information Studies University of Ottawa http://www.sis.uottawa.ca/faculty/hmorrison.html Sustaining the Knowledge Commons http://sustainingknowledgecommons.org/ [email protected] _______________________________________________ GOAL mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/mailman/listinfo/goal
