Update. Bad news from the #NEH for #KnowledgeCommons (and the rest of us).
https://about.hcommons.org/2025/04/17/on-the-neh-and-our-path-forward/

"On April 2, 2025, we received notification that our NEH Infrastructure and Capacity Building Challenge Grant, awarded in 2020, was terminated effective immediately…On April 10, 2025, we received further…notification that our contract to provide the NEH’s Designated Public-Access #Repository was also being terminated…This loss is devastating…both for the financial impact it represents…but also for the unceremonious end to a goal we’d set for ourselves years ago…Not to mention the bigger picture here: that designated public-access repository is no longer needed, because it is assumed that the NEH will no longer be funding research, and thus there will be no results of research to make publicly accessible."

PS: All the agencies covered by the #OSTP #NelsonMemo must designate #OpenAccess repositories for their OA content. NEH was the only agency to designate a repo not hosted by the govt. All the other agency repos will be hosted by the govt, where they will be subject to political censorship or takedowns.

Update. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (at Oxford UP) falsely assuming that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezaf092

The author concludes that there is *not* too much OA, but only because APC discounts and waivers exist. Imagine how much she could have strengthened her argument by bringing in #DiamondOA and #GreenOA.

Update. Here's another unrefereed letter to the editor (this time at Physics Today) falsely asserting that all #OpenAccess journals charge #APCs, effectively denying the existence and prevalence of no-APC OA (#DiamondOA) journals , and failing to acknowledge the existence of OA repositories (#GreenOA).
https://pubs.aip.org/physicstoday/article/78/3/8/3337073/Open-access-for-reading-or-closed-access-for

Update. Here's an unrefereed letter to the editor leaving the false impression that the UK #REF requires researchers to publish in #APC-based #OpenAccess journals. (It doesn't require publishing in OA journals; authors may choose #GreenOA instead; and when they do choose to publish in OA journals, they are free to choose no-APC or #DiamondOA journals.)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41415-025-8398-8

@petersuber Excellent! Love the #GreenOA model!

Now let's see greater investment in infrastructures to support this policy and more detailed consideration of research outputs that aren't journal articles

@neuralreckoning @internetarchive
Sorry if you already know this. The #NelsonMemo described #GreenOA policies. It required deposit in OA #repositories, not submission to OA #journals. Some publishers told authors that they'd have to pay #APCs to comply with the policy. But that was deception and spin. Compliance with the policy was always free of charge. When journals charge APCs to publish fed-funded research, it was to publish in those journals, not to comply with federal policy.

Update with a comment.

Don't throw in the towel. First, reform research #assessment to move away from journal impact factors (#JIFs) and to pay more attention to the quality of research than the number of publications or where they published. Second, move away from #APCs. To make research #OpenAccess, favor no-APC #GreenOA and #DiamondOA over APC-based varieties.

BTW, the Budapest Open Access Initiative 20th anniversary statement makes both these recommendations. (Disclosure: I was a co-author.)
https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/boai20/

Under the 2022 #OSTP #NelsonMemo, US federal funding agencies must make agency-funded research #OpenAccess in "agency-designated" #repositories. The same was true under the 2013 #HoldrenMemo. This is the first time that any federal agency has designated a repository neither built nor hosted by government agencies — an important milestone for #GreenOA. Kudos to #KnowledgeCommons (@hello).

Update. Here's another piece that made it through peer review (#Cureus / #SpringerNature) documenting the real problems of #APCs without mentioning the existence or prevalence of non-APC OA (#DiamondOA) journals.
https://www.cureus.com/articles/276986-increasing-importance-and-costs-associated-with-publishing-for-dermatology-residency-applicants#!/

The editors and peer reviewers also allowed this howler to stand: "The #GreenOA option does not charge an APC and is free for authors to publish but requires a subscription to the journal to read the article."

Update. Here's a letter to the editor trying to answer objections to #APCs. It points out the benefits of #OpenAccess that APCs pay for. But it never mentions #DiamondOA or #GreenOA. The author seems unaware, and certainly leaves the naïve reader unaware, that that we can get the benefits of OA without APCs.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100024003788