Talk:Embargo (academic publishing)

Open Access High‑importance

Embargo (academic publishing) is part of WikiProject Open Access, a collaborative attempt at improving the coverage of topics related to Open Access and at improving other articles with the help of materials from Open Access sources. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Open AccessWikipedia:WikiProject Open/Open access task forceTemplate:WikiProject Open AccessOpen access articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Open Access to-do list:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Creative Commons licensing (to replace Creative Commons license); Creative Commons Attribution License (currently a redirect), reproducible research (currently a redirect), supplementary material. Scholarly Open Access (currently a redirect)
Cleanup : Access2Research
Stubs : de-stub articles in Category:Stub-Class Open access articles.
Other : add {{WikiProject Open Access}} to talk pages of related articles, and assess;
- Check media files uploaded by the Open Access Media Importer for missing or incomplete categorization or lack of descriptions, or put the files into suitable Wikipedia articles. See also recent uploads of open-access files more generally.

Open (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Open, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.OpenWikipedia:WikiProject OpenTemplate:WikiProject OpenOpen articles

JSTOR link broken!!!!!

--FrobenChristoph (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Content moved over from Open access

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Open access was copied or moved into Academic publishing with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

I've moved over the #Role_for_publishers_in_scholarly_communication section from the open access page, witten by nemo bis, since I think it fits here better in a criticism section here than it did at its previous location (discussion). It probably still needs a bit of editing for tone and consistency with the rest of the page. The key points are intersting, but it repeats itself a bit and has some editorialising. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]