All posts by Kevin Smith, J.D.

Open Access topics

The economics of open access

2 Comments

When we talk about the economics of open access, the conversation usually begins with the high cost of traditional journal subscriptions.  For a nice summary of the argument that the economics of journal pricing is out of control, this portion of the ACRL toolkit on scholarly communications is an excellent resource.  But that is only the beginning of the discussion.  There is a lot more to say about open access economics.

One great source to grasp the nuance of the issues is a 2009 issue of the journal Economic Analysis and Policy, which itself made the transition from toll access to open availability under a Creative Commons Attribution license.  A special issue of the journal was dedicated to the economics of open access; the full contents are linked to this blog post, which make finding them much easier.

I can especially recommend the first two articles in this special issue of EAP.  John Willinsky does an excellent job in “The Stratified Economics of Open Access” of analyzing traditional publishing market segments and looking at how each is experimenting with open access.  Conley and Wooders, in “But what Have you Done for me lately,” ask the very basic questions about what publishing an academic article should cost and what the most economically efficient model for scholarly communications might look like.

As I said, the conversation usually begins with high journal prices.  Open access is not a solution, per se, to the problem of journal costs, but it is a solution to the access problem that is created by skyrocketing prices.  For most academic authors, the issue of how much publishing really costs and how much of a university’s budget is actually going into shareholder value at Elsevier or Informa is very much secondary.  Their concern is how to get their work into the hands of those who need it and might be able to use it.  High subscription costs prevent that access and thus reduce the impact of scholarly work.  That is the problem that new models of distributing scholarship, most of which are forms of open access, can solve.

As Conley and Wooders’ article makes clear, open access is not free in the sense of being without any costs, although consumers of open access articles do get the information they need without charge.  Open access models are really about ways to streamline and redistribute the costs of publication so as to solve the access problem that is becoming so severe in the traditional system.

When we talk about the economics of open access, there are two factors that we should not forget.  First, the are costs, known as lost opportunity costs, associated with traditional publishing that are recaptured by open access.  Every time a researcher or teacher cannot get to the information she needs to do her work, or must obtain it by labor-intensive means like interlibrary loan or direct contact with the author, time and knowledge, which are both worth money, are wasted; open access reduces that loss.  Second, open access provides the benefit of greater impact to the scholarly authors of articles made accessible through the various OA models.  This benefit for the authors, like the benefit to the reader of quick and toll-free access, increases the overall value of research.  When we examine the economics of open access, the increased value of the research itself must be part of the equation.

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site

Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Open Access topics

Faculty support for Open Access scholarship

As we publish a series of posts in this space about open access in preparation for Open Access Week from October 18 through 24, it seems like a good time to interrupt ourselves and note three recent articles in which faculty authors express support, in a variety of ways, for open access to scholarship.

The most extensive and most provocative of these faculty comments about open access is the article by Professor Gloria Origgi about the responsibilities of scholars and the changing world of access.  The focus of her essay seems to be the need to move past the slow and antiquated system of traditional scholarly publishing.  There is a rather tongue-in-cheek post about her article called “Let’s Stop Publishing Research Papers” in a Chronicle of Higher Education blog, and the full paper, titled “Epistemic Vigilance and Epistemic Responsibility in the Liquid World of Scientific Publications,” is here (abstract is freely available while access to the full paper requires a subscription).

A recent blog post by Duke’s Cathy Davidson extends the discussion of open access publication, without actually mentioning the term, as she considers whether blogs should “count” in tenure and promotion reviews. Davidson’s conclusion, that blogging is a kind of “service” that is indeed a valuable part of the review of the work of scholars, is, to me, a new perspective on an often-debated topic that really advances the conversation.

Finally there is this short and simple appeal from law professor Rebecca Tushnet asking candidates for academic jobs to post their work in an openly accessible forum in order to make life easier for hiring committees.  Tushnet is not advocating for radical change in the academic job market, as Origgi and Davidson arguably are, but simply wants aspiring scholars to use the available means of digital access to make it easy for those who must evaluate them to find it.

For more faculty comments about the benefits of open access, see the short videos embedded in this web page on Open Access at Duke University.

Open Access topics

Open Access and the Metrics of Scholarly Impact

3 Comments

By Paolo Mangiafico

No one likes to be judged, and there are plenty of reasons to be wary of quantitative metrics being used to try to paint a complete picture of the value of an individual’s work. Yet things like publication and citation counts, “impact factors” of particular journals, the amount of grant dollars a researcher is bringing in, and other measures you can easily ascribe a number to are commonly used to gauge research activity and impact.

New methods and venues for publishing scholarship and tracking how it’s being used have kept the debate bubbling on how research impact can or shouldn’t be measured.  To get a sense of some of the issues, you could start by reading a piece titled “Scholars Seek Better Metrics for Assessing Research Productivity” from the Chronicle of Higher Education last year or the Nature special section on Metrics from earlier this year, including the comments from readers at the end of some of these articles.

This post isn’t going to wade into that broad debate. Since the focus of this series of blog posts is open access, let’s look at how open access is affecting metrics that are commonly used now (specifically, citation counts) and how open access might become the basis for new ways of measuring scholarly impact.

For some years now, the Open Citation Project has been maintaining a bibliography of studies measuring the effect of open access and downloads (‘hits’) on citation impact.  This bibliography has links to and summaries of studies going back about a decade, as well as rebuttals and debates about some of them. In general most of the studies tend to show that, compared to toll-access venues, making publications available via open access leads to greater impact, as measured by number of citations. In an earlier blog post on open data, I mentioned a study that showed similar effects for the data underlying the publications.

Some publishers are now providing metrics on use of and references to research on an article-by-article basis. For example the Public Library of Science journals provide article level metrics that include pageviews and downloads, citation counts from scholarly literature, social bookmarks, blog references, and comments, notes and ratings on articles in the PLoS site. Clearly, any such metrics cannot stand on their own as a pure indicator of value, but a basket of these indicators can provide a more comprehensive picture of trends around how research is being used and referenced.

Metrics like these are likely to become increasingly important as new models for scholarly publishing, including open access, become more common. In an opinion piece from 2007 in the Chronicle of Higher Education titled “The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority” Michael Jensen ruminated on how scholarly metrics and judgments about authority and value are changing in a world of information abundance, due to new technologies and publishing modes. He argues that “authority 3.0” will be based on a variety of heuristics computed through openly available data. He concludes by saying

“… if scholarly output is locked away behind fire walls, or on hard drives, or in print only, it risks becoming invisible to the automated Web crawlers, indexers, and authority-interpreters that are being developed. Scholarly invisibility is rarely the path to scholarly authority.”

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.Open Access logo, designed by PLoS

Open Access topics

Models for open access — many flavors

1 Comment

By Karen Grigg, Associate Director of Collection Services at the Duke Medical Center Library:

Open Access comes in a variety of flavors.  The two main types of open access are that of open access journals and self-archiving methods

Open Access journals are those that are freely available to the end-user.  Since the reader does not pay for content, costs must be subsidized by the author or the institution. Along with publication fees, submission fees are sometimes charged.

Examples:

BioMed Central, an online publisher of free peer-reviewed scientific articles, is sustained by revenue from institutions. However, the new “Shared Support Membership” allows institutions and authors to share article costs.

Public Library of Science, or PloS, charges a publication fee that can be paid by the author or the author’s employer. PLoS also relies on donations from foundations.

Self-archiving allows authors to submit their own material online so that it is accessible to the public.  There are two main varieties of self archiving; institutional repositories (IR), and Subject Based Repositories.  IR are hosted by an institution, such as a university, and bundles all the research output of the institution.  Often, the work is done by librarians or IT staff.  One such IR is eScholarship from the University of California.  A subject-based repository is hosted independently of an individual institution, and bundles the research output of a subject of discipline.  Authors voluntarily self-archive their work on a pre-print server.  An example of a subject repository  is Arxiv, a repository for- physicists and mathematicians.  Finally, authors often post articles on their own web sites, but the ability to do so requires negotiation with the publisher.

There are also some hybrid models of open access. Some publishers allow authors to decide whether or not an article can be openly accessed.  Authors who would like their article to be freely available can opt to pay the publishing fee.  These fees can be several thousand dollars per article.  The Delayed OA model gives public access to journal articles after an embargoed period, often 6 months to 1 year.  With a Partial OA journal, certain parts of the journal; often editorials or abstracts, are freely available, while the bulk of the content is for fee. Finally, Retrospective OA allows access to older journal articles that have been digitized.

For more background on Open Access Models, see:

Zhang, Sha Li. “OCLC Systems & Services | The Flavors of Open Access.” OCLC Systems & Services 23.3 (2007): 229-34. Emerald. Web. 15 Sept. 2010. <http://www.emeraldinsight.com/journals.htm?articleid=1622087&show=html>.

“Peter Suber, Open Access Overview (definition, Introduction).” Earlham College — Richmond, Indiana. Web. 15 Sept. 2010. <http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm>.

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.

Copyright Issues and Legislation, international IP, Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing

Can we protect “traditional knowledge?” Should we?

7 Comments

In much of the world, the possibility of providing protection for traditional knowledge — indigenous music, stories, dances and even genetic material — is a very lively topic.  Even though such protections are a form of intellectual property right that clearly impacts issues of scholarship and copyright, I have not previously dealt with these discussions in this space.  That is largely because of the great uncertainty I feel about the whole issue of whether such protections are appropriate and what form they should take.

It is not difficulty to find stories of how native peoples have been exploited for economic gain by companies that will appropriate and market traditional knowledge forms — everything from music to medicine.  Such exploitation causes one to think that there is a hole in copyright laws that needs to be filled.  But any attempt to expand the scope of our copyright protections, which already seem to cover too much and last too long, is likely to have a detrimental effect on scholarship.  Thus I find myself caught between warring impulses — respect for the intellectual creations of native peoples  versus the desire to foster widespread knowledge of different cultures .  This latter impulse is a corollary of the general belief that a robust public domain is a good thing overall for all societies.

I was finally prompted to address the topic of traditional knowledge by this announcement that Ghana plans to start enforcing provisions of its 2005 copyright law that create fairly strict protections for “folklore.”  This short blog post led me to look at the Ghana Copyright Act itself to see how it address some of the problems that seem inherent in such protection.

One obvious problem is how to define folklore, which is the term used in the Ghanaian law.  The definition given at the end of the Ghanaian act is very broad and not terribly specific.  Because so many things fall into the category of traditional knowledge, it is important to have clear definitions of the subject matter of protection.  Does “folklore” in Ghana, for example, encompass dance?  What about traditional medicines?  Should such diverse subject matter be treated under the same law as works of authorship?

Another issue is very clearly dealt with by the Ghanaian law — the issue of who owns folklore.  In section 4 of the attached document, the law states that “the rights of folklore are vested in the President on behalf of and in trust for the people of the Republic.”  However noble the intent, this is an assertion of state ownership over folklore, an assertion which is always open to the challenge about whether the state really best represents the interests of all of the varied and ancient peoples who created this wisdom.  Also, because it is the state that holds these rights, the protection of folklore is perpetual.

The protections provided for folklore in Ghana are the same as the copyrights vested in more typical subject matter.  Rights in folklore are also subject to the same set of exceptions as Ghana provides for other content, and these are a pretty good set of user rights (found in section 19).  No permission is needed, for example, for purely private and personal uses, for quotation in another work (as long as attribution is provided), for use in teaching and “public education” and for news reports, including broadcasts.  Many of the uses that would be important to scholars of Ghanaian folklore would be included in these exceptions except for the fact that they are so often limited by the caveat that for the exception to apply the work must have been “made public.”  The problem here is that so much indigenous knowledge may not have been made public in any recognizable way, so scholars of these works may still be forced to seek permission.

To get permission one must apply to a government-run National Folklore Board, established in sections 59-64.  Since this Board will both approve or reject the proposed use and set fees, its potential for skewing research into Ghanaian culture seems tremendous.  The statements made in this longer article about folklore from the Minister of Chieftaincy and Culture  are very frank in saying that the goal of the board is to exploit folklore as an economic asset of the nation and to “repackage” culture as a source of employment.  It seems possible and even likely that those goals could conflict with efforts to study Ghanaian culture and to make its subtleties better known amongst students of Africa around the world.  Would the Board deny permission, for example, for a scholarly work that is critical of aspects of Ghanaian folklore on the grounds that such an evaluation could cause economic damage?

Even as Ghana asserts stepped up enforcement of its rules regarding folklore, South Africa is considering new protections for traditional knowledge or “Indigenous Knowledge Systems,” about which more information can be found here, here and here.  Ghana’ approach is apparently quite unusual, so comparison with the South African proposal can be very instructive.  And finally, a fuller expression of the reservations one might have about all these attempts to restrict use of traditional knowledge can be inferred, I think, from this eloquent celebration of the benefits of Open Folklore Project in the United States.  I am still unsure how to balance the two approaches, but I remain convinced that balance is what is needed.

Open Access topics

What is Open Science?

1 Comment

Our next OA Week posting comes from Michael Peper, Librarian for Math and Physics at Duke:

We’ve discussed openness in terms of publications and data, but this same spirit can apply to the research process as well.  Science in some ways is necessarily a shared and collaborative process.  Scientists work together in labs, they share equipment, materials and human resources and share results in publications.  In many cases, however, there was much about the practice of science that has been kept in the dark.  Scientists would not share methods, data, preliminary results, etc. until publication, if ever.  Recently, however, there has been great interest in trying to answer big questions and solve big problems by joining forces to accomplish work that could never be done by one isolated researcher.  Improved cyber infrastructure makes the opportunities for sharing even greater.  Many believe that Open Science should not just be adopted for its admirable ideals, but also because open science also holds promise of being better science.

The title of this post, however, is ‘What is Open Science?’ so perhaps I should actually attempt to answer that question.

The boundaries of Open Science are difficult to define because this idea encompasses other issues related to openness.  Transparency, across the entire practice of science, is what defines Open Science.  Both Science Commons and the Open Science Project lay out their principles of this idea in an attempt to provide it some limits.  The spirit of these principles is that there should be transparency to the methods, observations, data collection, data access, communication, collaboration and research tools.  Instead of limiting the sharing of the practice of science to publication of selected results, the entire scientific process should be exposed to potential users, collaborators and extenders of the work.

There are a growing number of projects that have embraced these ideals and we can point to a few of them here.  Cameron Neylon keeps an open notebook for his work in the biological sciences on producing antibacterial compounds and also writes for the blog Science in the Open.  The Synaptic Leap is another open lab notebook project to create a way for biomedical researchers to collaborate.  The collaborators include Thomas Kepler at the Duke University Medical Center.  A final example is the UsefulChem project which is the brainchild of Jean-Claude Bradley who uses his background as an organic chemist to develop new anti-malarial compounds in an open environment.

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.Open Access logo, designed by PLoS

Open Access topics

What is Open data?

3 Comments

From Paolo Mangiafico, Duke’s Director of Digital Information Strategy:

Open Access is about more than just the publications that are the results of research – it’s also about the data generated during the research process.

While publications have always been “public” by definition (even if not universally accessible), data has more frequently been made available only on request, or when there’s some reason to question the published results.

But there are good reasons to make more data more open more often. A 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences titled “Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility, and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age” makes the case this way:

The advance of knowledge is based on the open flow of information. Only when a researcher shares data and results with other researchers can the accuracy of the data, analyses, and conclusions be verified. Different researchers apply their own perspectives to the same body of information, which reduces the bias inherent in individual perspectives. Unrestricted access to the data used to derive conclusions also builds public confidence in the processes and outcomes of research. Furthermore, scientific, engineering, and medical research is a cumulative process. New ideas build on earlier knowledge, so that the frontiers of human understanding continually move outward.

Researchers use each other’s data and conclusions to extend their own ideas, making the total effort much greater than the sum of the individual efforts.

Openness speeds and strengthens the advance of human knowledge.” (p. 59)

While not all data should be kept and not all data can be shared, policies, processes, and infrastructure are being developed in many fields and at many institutions to promote openness of research data wherever possible. One example based here at Duke, the Dryad repository, part of the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, is working with stakeholders from journals and scientific societies to develop data sharing policies, and a place to deposit data underlying scientific publications. Similar policies have been adopted by funding agencies and are becoming an expectation in many fields.

Making your data openly accessible can also bring more attention to your work.

One study that examined the citation history of 85 cancer microarray clinical trial publications found that

48% of trials with publicly available microarray data received 85% of the aggregate citations. Publicly available data was significantly (p = 0.006) associated with a 69% increase in citations, independently of journal impact factor, date of publication, and author country of origin using linear regression.” (Piwowar HA,  Day RS, Fridsma DB, 2007 “Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate.” PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308)

Want to learn more about open data and how you can share the results of your work? Here are some starting points:

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.Open Access logo, designed by PLoS

Authors' Rights, Fair Use, Open Access and Institutional Repositories, Scholarly Publishing

What is an author to do?

8 Comments

A fascinating little controversy came to my attention the other day; one of those disputes that seems well outside the arena of academic issues, yet raises lots of questions that scholarly authors need to consider.

The basic facts of the dispute, which are summarized here on the Techdirt blog, are that the author Raymond Carver published a group of short stories in the 1970s and early 1980s that were subject to very heavy revision by his editor at Knopf Publishing, a man named Gordon Lish.  It seems that it is Lish, more than Carver himself, who was responsible for the spare, laconic style for which Carver was famous.  In fact, Carver’s stories were much more sentimental and expansive before Lish finished with them.  Now Carver’s widow, Tess Gallagher, wants to publish the original, unedited versions of these stories and she is being threatened with a copyright infringement claim by Knopf if she does so.

Two things should be acknowledged up front about this disagreement.  First, Carver consented to the changes, although he grew increasingly dissatisfied with them, and legally transferred copyright to Knopf.  Second, it is at least arguable that the changes made by Lish really did improve the stories.  But each of these acknowledgments also must be qualified.  Carver gave his consent to the changes and to Knopf’s ownership of copyright, but he pleaded with Lish to stop falsifying his authorial voice, even threatening to stop writing altogether if the editing continued.  Unfortunately, Carver was trapped by the publishing system; there was no way he could express himself without the services of Knopf, and Knopf’s editor insisted (for a while) on making the changes.  And while the changes may have improved the stories, they have obfuscated scholarship about Carver over the years.

A law review article by Cardozo law student Matthew Weldon discusses this case in detail and describes what options are open to Tess Gallagher.  In the process, he offers some nice reflections on the role of an editor, although it is unfortunate that his categories of writing and the kinds of editing appropriate to them does not include academic works.  The upshot of his analysis is that US law does not give Ms. Gallagher many options.  He considers how the moral rights tradition would protect Carver from drastic changes to his work, but notes that the US has never protected attribution and integrity, in spite of commitments to do so in international treaties we have joined.  In the end, the best Weldon can suggest is that the moral rights that underlie this controversy would support a fair use defense if Gallagher decided to go ahead and publish in spite of the threats from Knopf.

It seems to me that this case raises several important questions for academic and scholarly authors to consider.

First, what should the role of an editor of scholarly works be?  In copyright controversies, publishers are pushing harder and harder on the idea that they make copyrightable contributions to journal articles.  Yet even in the extreme case of Gordon Lish, there is no realistic way to claim that his changes gave him a copyright interest in the stories apart from Carver’s transfer of his own rights (as Weldon shows in some detail).  And if publishers do make significant changes to scholarly works, we need to ask whether those changes improve the work or undermine it, and how such alterations should be noted in order to preserve the scholarly record.

Second, do scholarly authors need to take steps to protect the integrity of their ideas and their voices from editorial presumptions?  Just as with Raymond Carver, the European tradition of moral rights does not function well in the US, so there is little protection, in copyright, for attribution or to preserve the integrity of an author’s work.  If an author in the US wants a guarantee of attribution, for example, it must be negotiated into the publication contract.  So must any guarantees about preserving the integrity of the original work.  These “moral” issues are at the very heart of value of scholarly publishing for academics, and yet copyright law does not protect them; there is no legal reason why, after a copyright transfer, the work of an author could not be published in revised form and/or over the name of a different person.  Thus extra diligence when transferring copyright may be required for scholarly authors who are concerned about their reputations and about the integrity of the scholarly record.

Finally, the Carver stories, and the failure of copyright law to provide a good solution to that dilemma, causes us to wonder if copyright law as it currently exists really serves the needs of scholarship or if it more often hinders its progress.  Certainly studies of the work of Raymond Carver are seriously undermined when critics cannot tell whether they are reading the words of Carver or Lish, and cannot compare the two versions.  Carver, of course, was trapped by the publishing system, where dissemination of his work left him no alternative but to acquiesce to his editor’s suggestions.  But academic authors today are not so dependent, and neither are creative artists.  The Internet offers opportunities to distribute work without any role for intermediaries, if the author thinks that is her best course.  And a stable online presence, even after traditional publication has taken place, can help an author defend his reputation against misappropriation or corruption of his work.

Open Access topics

What is Open Access?

2 Comments

Continuing our run-up to Open Access week, another contribution from Pat Thibodeau:

Open access (OA) in its purest sense is making literature free online without any fees or restrictions due to copyright or licenses.

The Budapest Open Access Initiative [http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml ] was the first to define open access as being publicly free on the Internet, allowing users to read, download, copy, distribute, print, search or link to the full text of articles without legal, financial or technical barriers.  Since their statement, others have followed and Peter Suber, one of the true experts on OA, provides an excellent overview and timeline on his Web site:  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/overview.htm

Some other important statements are:

Bethesda Statement on Open Access Publishing  http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm

Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities http://oa.mpg.de/berlin-prozess/berliner-erklarung/

While the OA movement initially focused on journal literature, it is now being applied across the realm of scholarly communication including books, learning objects, repositories of various documents, and data sets.   In all its permutations, its goal is to ensure free access to information to support academic, research and personal pursuits of knowledge and promote innovation and discovery on a global as well as local level.

The OA movement has had an impact on the journal literature.  There are now over 5,300 titles in the Directory of Open Access Journals  [http://www.doaj.org/] and a 2009  PL0S One article by Bjork et al. [http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0011273] reports that now 20% of peer-reviewed articles are freely available across all disciplines.   This is a major shift since the Budapest statement challenged traditional scholarly communications in 2002.

While Peter Suber’s OA chronology [http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/timeline.htm]  identifies very early free-access models,  the OA  movement has clearly gained momentum since the Budapest initiative issued its statement in 2002.

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.Open Access logo, designed by PLoS

Open Access topics

Collaboration and the open access movement

In anticipation of Open Access Week at Duke, where the theme will be “Collaboration,” we will offer a series of blog posts about basic, and not so basic, issues and opportunities for OA.  This first post if from Pat Thibodeau, Associate Dean for Library Services in the Duke Medical Center.

The simplest definition of collaboration is “to work jointly with others or together especially in an in intellectual endeavor.”   But the open access source Wikipedia [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaboration]   describes it as a “recursive process” where common goals are achieved “by sharing knowledge, learning and building consensus.”    As multidisciplinary and global projects increase in number that sharing of knowledge or information becomes very critical.  But what happens when one of the collaborators cannot access the information because of a restrictive license, the prohibitive cost of a journal subscription, or the unavailability of publicly funded research data?  Collaboration can be hampered if not halted.

The open access (OA) movement is focused on removing the barriers of price, copyright, and restricted use.  OA promotes the free flow of knowledge and data that makes collaboration possible and ultimately supports the generation of new innovations, creative ideas and scientific discoveries on a global scale.  Collaborators are no longer hampered by institutional or international boundaries.

So has open access actually made a difference?

In fact yes!  A recent NY Times article highlighted a research project where data were openly and publicly shared among commercial industries, universities and nonprofit groups in order to find biological markers of Alzheimer’s disease.  This “collaborative effort” has led to new research on early diagnostic tests as well as treatments.  [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/13/health/research/13alzheimer.html?_r=1&ref=gina_kolata]

This project is now serving as a model for groups studying other diseases.

In preparation of Open Access Week@Duke (Oct. 18-24), this blog will focus on other topics such as open data, open science, and other elements of the OA movement.  As you follow these blog posts, think about how OA could support collaboration at Duke, within your field, or across the world.

For more information, see the Open Access at Duke web site.Open Access logo, designed by PLoS