All Open Access Is Not Equal

Submitted by Dean Giustini on May 20, 2007 - 15:29

[img_assist|nid=18|title=The Access Principle|desc=|link=node|align=left|width=73|height=100]One of the major principles of open access (OA) is that authors (and researchers) are much more likely to read (and therefore cite) articles made available under OA models. Is this true? What is the evidence proving this assertion? With the proliferation of OA models in science and medical publishing (and different business models), some readers have expressed confusion about OA and how it is defined.

Thus, let's start with two basic kinds of OA:

OM blog - Scientific American and Guyatt article

Submitted by Dean Giustini on May 11, 2007 - 03:55

"Scientific American" has published an article about the Guyatt systematic review from our first issue.  It quotes Patty Groome, an epidemiologist at Queens University Cancer Research Institute in Kingston, Ontario, and

OM blog - Rise of openness in medicine

Submitted by Dean Giustini on May 1, 2007 - 00:31

In addition to the systematic review of Guyatt and other clinical articles, our inaugural issue deals thematically with the rise of openness in medical publishing. You might even say our first issue is a phoenix rising. Why is openness, independence and transparency important in an era of evidence-based practice?