There are now a few varients on the original decision tree flowchard from the Publishers Association that was included in the recent RCUK Policy on Open Access and Supporting Guidance. This chart has been criticised for directing researchers towards the Gold route to open access.
The University of Oxford have released a 'Researcher Decision Tree - 'Green' or 'Gold'. This flowchart gives equal weight to Green or Gold routes to open access.
The University of Manchester has a similar webpage to inform researchers making decisions on where and how to publish. The 'Show Me How' site is a simple step-through process.
If more decision trees become available, we will add them here to this post.
15/05/2013: University of Edinburgh: Choosing Green or Gold Open Access flowchart
If I had a pound for each time I've heard that statement over the last week (actually the RCUK policy calls it a 'process'), I'd almost have enough for a Gold OA article in an Elsevier journal.
The LSE Impact of Social Science blog today contains a response to an earlier post about institutional repositories and their role in the transition to Open Access. It was almost like the authors today's post had listened to the conversations in our office over the last few days. I'm joking, of course they haven't but the points raised echoed our own response to Mike Taylor's post.
The scholarly communications landscape is evolving. Repositories are a part of the transition - without them, and (note this point) the expertise developed through their use and promotion, the Open Access movement would not be where it is today, which is at the forefront of discussions on publications and the sharing of research.
The irony is that we are all for Open Access, it's the journey that's under discussion.
Gold open access is growing. This is where the author or research funder pays and an article processing charge for the publication to be freely available online. Charges vary from nothing to thousands of pounds. So what represents good value for money? Clearly this is an important question for the author, institution or funder paying the fee. But it also matters to the general public whose tax money funds research.
I’ve seen a couple of interesting approaches to answering this recently:
Eigenfactor’s Cost Effectiveness for Open Access Journals plots article processing charges against the journal’s article influence score (a weighted citation based measure of a journal’s merit).
Ross Mounce, a doctoral research here at the University of Bath, has produced a plot of article processing charges against the standard of openness: will you and your readers be able to re-use the paper, text-mine etc?
Both helpful steps towards transparency and demonstrable value for money in this emerging publication model.