Why We Still Oppose Gold and Also Oppose Hybrid Open Access
AbstractIn Vol 2, No 2 of feminists@law (2012) we published our response to the Finch Report as an Editorial titled ‘Why We Oppose Gold Open Access’. Five years later, it is timely to take stock of what has happened since the Finch Report and to revisit our assessment of the government’s and research funders’ open access (OA) policies. Our focus in this Editorial is on journal publishing in Law and more generally in Humanities and Social Sciences (HASS) rather than in the STEM disciplines, on which much of the OA literature since Finch has been based. We consider first how the market in OA has developed since 2012, and secondly how the OA ecosystem now appears, before finally making proposals for the future.
- Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work for any purposs with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).