The Chronicle has an article on the open access movement in the sciences, but it could apply to all electronic scholarly publishing. I'm a little confused: Is there a difference between "open access" and "open content"? Does "open content" connote more of an invitation to readers to modify the content? I'm tired, so just a couple of high points from the article: "In November, Cornell University announced that it would have to cancel more than 200 subscriptions to journals from the publishing colossus Reed Elsevier, which produces more than 1,600 journals. Other major research universities have subsequently done the same." (!!!!)

And, says one publishing industry representative, open access is "'the most articulate and serious threat to the conventional publishing model that we've seen.'" The Chronicle also features a colloquy with Peter Suber of Open Access News. Suber has a lot of ideas related to open access.



As an aside, sometimes I think I'm in the wrong field. Librarians ROCK. They are fighting for open access, seeing the implications for marginalization and silencing in archiving practices (see Wendy Sharer's essay in Rhetorical Bodies, edited by Jack Selzer and Sharon Crowley), and taking on the role as watchdogs to protect our freedom to access information without fear of government intrusion.

Via Open Access News by way of Jeremy Hunsinger.