Talk:Open access (publishing)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Title
On the basis of WP like other encyclopedias preferring entry by the noun, and for consistency with other articles, I ask for opinion on changing the name to "Open access publisher"DGG 05:03, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] No reason to change the title
"Open access publisher" as a title would make no sense. The article is about "open access" in the sense of scientific publishing. The article is not only about "open access publishers" such as PLoS or BioMed Central, it is about the whole concept of open access. There's no reason to change the title. Fences and windows 23:15, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] POV section
The section "Open access by the numbers" used to contain an explicit call for statistics in support of the "open access" movement. I have removed this inappropriate call to action, and tagged the section for merger. Based on Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, I think the best way to handle this material is to convert it into prose, and simply delete any statistics that are blatantly not neutral. (Others have also complained about this section on other talk pages, before this article was reorganized.) -- Beland 02:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
-
- the OA by the numbers section does indeed need to be checked again for which ones are neutral--on the OA page.
- the part of it for OA journals should probably be moved here after we agreee which parts are NPOV.
- the OA by the numbers section does indeed need to be checked again for which ones are neutral--on the OA page.
== —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 07:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- I decided to move Journals by the numbers now, and did. This part now has only the by the numbers--OA books. As for the rest of the content, it needs some looking over. DGG 08:56, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
- The section was getting outdated, and has now been removed.DGG 05:03, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] merge question
The question of whether this page should be merged with open access journal has been asked again. There are some reasons for having two pages:
- the open access journal page links to pages for lists of oa journals, and oa journals in the various disciplines. Though not all of this has been done yet, there's a project around working on getting them all.
- There seems to be no common term for (OA journal + hybrid OA journal + delayed OA journal). This would imply that this present open access publishing page should be the main page for the concept, with the other three leading off it.
- Doing this would take some rearranging, but it wouldn't be too difficult. I think it could be done without moving too many links.
Opinion? DGG 05:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
