Oxford University Press Releases Open Access Results: “Oxford Open, which launched in July 2005, gives authors the option of paying for their research to be made freely available online immediately upon publication in the participating journals”.
First, in my opinion, this is not open-access, I already explained why. Briefly, this model is, in fact, an author-pays model: it moves the charging of money from readers to writers, so it is doomed to stay against open-access, by its own definition; besides, the U.K.’s Royal Society pointed already the potential bad consequences on research quality of using the author-pays model (an author with results to publish but no money to pay for publishing them is to get lost).
The results of practicing the author-pays model as an option over the last year suggest to O.U.P. that: ‘open access is likely to be “only one of a range of models” that will support research communities’.
Secondly, because the author-pays model is not an open-access model, the results of O.U.P.’s publishing experiment have no relevance to open-access.
Paying to be made freely available :). This nonsense (pity for those who are financing it) is due to marketing people in publishing trying to wrap all their reactive moves in phrases containing “open-access”.
The research paid partially or totally from public funds has to be made available to the public at no significant supplementary costs: that, in essence, is open-access, and that, in essence, is what the public paid for already.
I will keep repeating this whenever I will get news about various publisher-marketing moves disguised as “open-access” experiments.