Read the blog post by Jon Tennant on Open Access Button and of course visit its web-site: Open Access Button
I admit that I have not tested the OAB personally. Usually, I am disseminating news which I see occasionally and may forget in future. However, as the information flow is very dense It happens to me frequently to forget something important. Therefore, not everything is important, but I prefer to have the discussion alive than to have it stalled. Now, regarding the button, probably it is useful itself and also has its own drawbacks. If the developers are open as they claim to be, they will improve the idea to make it a worthwhile effort. From my point of view, one can make significant efforts into one direction alone or with many and again it will not take effect - or at least will not lead to the initial destination. Therefore, If the idea is good and does not harm anyone - then let it be. Unfortunately, there is always destruction before the construction so, the Open Access movement will do the same before it become ubiquitous. There is no two opinions after all - that the research has to be open to those who use it for good purposes. This is what I do believe in. I know I sound a bit naive because we know also of evil minds which also make a lot of harm using research results. Therefore, there should be an ethical code or standard which will guide the use of research in future in order to drive humankind forward but not backward. We have got enough of violence, destruction and social diseases through the existence of man - so what we should use Open Access movement for is Peace! Probably I am a daydreamer... who knows.
Now I have visited the OA Button website, and have made the following comment as a "bug" report directly to OAB:
Best regards, P.
Thanks for this note. I left my first reaction as a comment submitted to the Tennant blog post. I should study the matter further.
I would be surprised if the students who created the Button have not thought about the issue raised in my comment, which is copied here:
"This is a great initiative, but needs to be matched with an attempt to map how the costs of reviewing and editing journals relate to the costs of access -- i.e. to different publishing models. Personally I am not interested in free access to (scam) journals that have no management and production costs because the owners have no intention to establish or maintain a desired academic level. I expect that costs have to be faced by both readers and authors, and how this is managed equitably, with good effect for research communication is the key question. Open Access is just one side of the coin."