On one hand, this isn't a new model for (some) gold OA journals (as BMJ notes). Some journals use "overlay publishing," where a defined issue is a set of pointers to articles that were posted as soon as they were ready. Others have abandoned the issue concept entirely and define the journal as a branded stream of articles. (That model, sometimes difficult to deal with, has been around for years--at least since 1995 and probably before then.)
Other than BMJ's high profile, what makes BMJ's change interesting is that there's a print journal--and it's becoming a selection of BMJ's published articles rather than the totality. Assuming nobody tries to make a branding distinction between "accepted but not part of the print record" and "part of the print record" this strikes me as a useful innovation.
[I'm in the process of building a cluster on open access at the PALINET Leadership Network, so I've been thinking about this more than usual.]
FamManLib
· 1 year ago
Walt, good points. Thanks. I can see cataloging implications for this BMJ approach. And more.
All Comments
Other than BMJ's high profile, what makes BMJ's change interesting is that there's a print journal--and it's becoming a selection of BMJ's published articles rather than the totality. Assuming nobody tries to make a branding distinction between "accepted but not part of the print record" and "part of the print record" this strikes me as a useful innovation.
[I'm in the process of building a cluster on open access at the PALINET Leadership Network, so I've been thinking about this more than usual.]
approach. And more.