Search

Since the earliest pressures to develop open access (OA) options for journal literature were in the fields of science and medicine, the predominant models reflect those origins and fit those disciplines. These models are less applicable to humanities publishing models, which have been slower to embrace open access. Current literature on OA in the humanities focuses on theoretical frameworks and end-user perceptions. This study complements those perspectives by examining current practices in the humanities, specifically, the OA options offered by journals serving the discipline of the classics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The study compared the characteristics of academic and nonacademic serials with title changes, from which it was determined that the two serial subpopulations were similar in the six broad reasons found for a title change but differed in the kinds and proportions of subject and function changes that occurred when a title changed. On the basis of the findings, two alternate RDA rule revision proposals are made (labeled Ideal versus Practical), the first requiring a new access point for a title change only when a significant subject or function change has occurred, and the second requiring a new access point only when the publisher has indicated the start of a totally new serial. It is further recommended that reasons for title changes be determined from statements in the serial or directly from the editor or publisher rather than from word changes in the title. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]