2. Open Access:
Green and Gold
•Roughly Speaking:
•“Green”= “free” to authors and readers (e.g.
arXiv, institutional repositories, etc)
•“Gold”= free to readers, paid for by authors
(via “Author Processing Charge”)
•Open Access of some form is mandatory for
some funding agencies..
9 October 2018
3. •Most research in my field (and other “blue skies”
subjects) is funded by the tax payer, so the tax payer
should have access to it.
•Public trust (climate change, fracking..)
•Open science is better science
•Does Open Access go far enough?
•Everything needed to reproduce the results should be
made public: data, analysis tools, the lot…
Why Open Access?
5. •Most new astrophysics research has been available via
“Green” Open Access via the arXiv for > 25 years.
•Running costs are <$1M, met by donations
•Despite decreasing publication costs, subscriptions to
traditional academic publications have increased
•Huge profits for private companies and Learned
Societies
•NASA/ADS has historical papers back to 19th
century
•Do we need these journals at all?
Why Academic Journals?
6. • Does Peer Review really “add value”?
• Peer Review is not done by the journals, but
academics (i.e. you and me), usually for free.
• With a more radical publication model, peer review
could be much more effective..
• Astrophysics already leads in “citizen science”, e.g.
“Galaxy Zoo”.
• Is BICEP2 (http://bicepkeck.org/) a taste of the future?
Peer Review
10. •The arXiv and NASA/ADS systems have already made
traditional journals virtually redundant
•Most papers are submitted to arXiv before peer review
•Gold Open Access is simply a rip-off
•The Open Journal for Astrophysics ia a free, open
access, community-reviewed “journal” based on the
arXiv
•Published by Maynooth Academic Publishing!
The Open Journal of
Astrophysics