RESOURCE: Ten myths around open scholarly publishing

Jonathan P. Tennant (IGDORE), Harry Crane (Rutgers University), Tom Crick (Swansea University), Jacinto Davila (Universidad de Los Andes), Asura Enkhbayar (Simon Fraser University), Johanna Havemann (IGDORE), Bianca Kramer (Utrecht University), Ryan Martin (North Carolina State University), Paola Masuzzo (IGDORE), Andy Nobes (International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications), Curt Rice (), Bárbara R. López (Asesora Producción Científica), Tony Ross-Hellauer (Graz University), Susanne Sattler (Imperial College London), Paul Thacker (independent journalist), and Marc Vanholsbeeck (Université Libre de Bruxelles) have made their paper, “Ten myths around open scholarly publishing,” available through PeerJ Preprints.

From the abstract:

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emergence of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly-debated topics. Yet, evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. The aim of this article is to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices and policies. We address preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. The presented facts and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and may be used to inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.

These “ten most contested topics” include questions around research being “scooped,” predatory publishers, and copyright issues.