Here's a paywalled editorial recommending #OpenAccess, #OpenData, and #OpenScience. The authors/editors could easily have made it OA, but they put it behind a paywall instead.
"Open science should be a pleonasm"
https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/anae.15962
Update. Here's another paywalled editorial on #openaccess that the authors/editors could have easily made OA.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/ijd.16576
But this one is critical, not supportive. Honest Q: Is that a reason to put it behind a paywall? Wouldn't they like their objections to have more impact?
The objections restate the classic misunderstandings that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and all or most APCs are paid by authors.
Because it's an editorial, it did not have to survive peer review.
Update. Here's a #paywalled opinion recommending #opendata.
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2973
But it's not an editorial. Hence the authors couldn't decide on their own to make it OA — in this journal. But they could have made it OA elsewhere.
"Data sharing, although a laudable idea, is not rising to its potential…The NIH should consider [our hidden recommendations]."
Update. Here's another #paywalled editorial critical of #openaccess.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ijd.16576
The authors/editors could easily have made it OA, but put it behind a paywall and reduced the impact of their objections. Like others in this genre, it rests on the classic misunderstandings that all or most OA journals charge #APCs and all or most APCs are paid by authors.
Update. Here's another piece recommending #OpenAccess that the authors decided to publish behind a paywall.
https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijgo.14976
Here's the only part not paywalled: "Open access publishing remains a challenge in #Africa due to poverty and poor research funding. There is a need for global action."
The benefits to patients, science, and society are undeniable Reuse of medical research data—which is conditional on access to individual participant data—is expected to maximise the value of medical research. It enables alternative hypothesis testing, validation of claims, exploration of controversies, restoration of unpublished trials, avoidance of duplicated efforts, and production of new knowledge from existing datasets. Given these benefits, politicians,123 funders,4 and publishers5 now support and implement data sharing policies. However, converging evidence indicates that current policies are unlikely to reach their goal of achieving data sharing. In a linked paper at The BMJ , Hamilton and colleagues (doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-075767) synthesised 105 meta-research studies examining 2 121 580 articles across 31 medical specialties and found that, despite some heterogeneity, data sharing rates are consistently low across medical research.6 Intention-to-share data have increased with time but are not associated with any increase in actual data sharing. Responsible sharing of such sensitive data is, however, a complex endeavour. Preparing, storing, processing, administering data, and complying with legal and regulatory data protection requirements …
Update. The authors of this article recommend wider adoption of open practices in the field of special education. But they chose to publish behind a paywall.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/00144029221145195
EDIT. I just found an OA preprint at EdArxiv.
https://edarxiv.org/d8unh
Update. Here's another #paywalled #editorial on #OpenAccess. Like many other paywalled editorials, there isn't even OA abstract.
"The future of open access, open science, and research dissemination"
https://sigmapubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jnu.12935
It includes this false statement, which would not have made it through peer review: "Under open access models, publishers make money through article processing charges (APC)."
petersuber
Carlos Cámara-Menoyo