It was interesting to read the possible objections to the closed approach. Both Weller's and Adams touch on issues of intellectual property and copyright, but something I felt was not explored was the issue of quality and standards. I agree with many of the points that Weller makes about traditional publishing, its elitism, conservatism and frequent exploitation of authors. But publishers of academic books and journals do act as gatekeepers, ensuring that what is produced has met certain standards in terms of research and style, and has passed a number of well-qualified eyes. There is, of course, plenty to be said for the spontaneous blogpost, but there is a need for careful, in-depth analysis too, particularly in the case of the sciences.

There is no reason, of course, why sources should not be open AND peer-reviewed. In fact, I've already seen at least one such online journal on my internet searches. It may just be the case that a little time is required for such publications to build up the credibility they need. 

A lot of what Martin Weller's said resonated with me. I think that the 'unexpected results' phenomenon he talked about is one that most of us can recognise: after we put up our entry for the JISC accessibility competition, our group leader was asked to speak to the CEO of Makaton, which we most certainly were not expecting. And if we had embarked on the project in a closed manner, I doubt we would have made that kind of contact. 

I was heartened to hear what he said, as well, about the reciprocal nature of networked practice. I believe what he says, but I suspect you are more likely to be able to ask your network for favours if you have recognition and status in your community, and that will probably be achieved through citations, conference speeches, and all the traditional academic pathways. 

I am, on the whole, in favour of openness. Over the weekend, I listened to a pair of archaeologists on a podcast, who had developed a tool called 'Open Context', which allowed researchers to share datasets online. One of them said that open practice has gone from being something quirky that you could opt out of to, to being something that you knew you really had to do. I suspect that applies across disciplines now.