Should a section about Open Access publishing be included

[elliewix]

We have a pretty awkward transition between the DOI lesson and the open access information. Might naturally sort itself out later on, but right now somewhat being deliberately ignored.

[hlapp]

Between #25 and #26 I have taken out the Open Access section. I think advocating Open Access publishing (which is an ongoing debate with many arguments on both sides) goes beyond the scope of this lesson and of the curriculum.

OK to close?

[elliewix]

I think it's ok to mention open access as A Thing, but good to keep out of any advocacy. Worth mentioning open access because some federal mandates are requiring some research products to be made open access, but you can still keep out of the philosophical promotion even when having that conversation.

But okay to leave out for now, if easier.

[hlapp]

I wasn't saying that Open Access isn't worth mentioning or even advocating for. But it's not clear to me how to fit it in here persuasively under the scope of Reproducible Research using Jupyter Notebooks. You can certainly do reproducible research with Jupyter Notebooks perfectly well without ever publishing in an Open Access journal. I.e., Open Access publishing (in contrast to open access to source code, data, and other ingredient research products) is a subject separate from that of Reproducible Research, and I think trying to tie them together helps neither.

[choldgraf]

I think that we should table this discussion and see what the technology looks like sometime in the future. I agree w/ @hlapp that right now there is no clear link between notebooks + OA publishing that deserves its own special treatment.

The reproducible work materials are already somewhat duplicated between the jupyter + R courses, so unless this is explicitly OK and/or preferred, it'd be better not to increase the duplication.