Open Access: Science Publishing as Science Publishing Should Be

Full and unimpeded access (Open Access) to science literature is needed. It is not provided by the traditional subscription-based publishing model. Instead of criticizing Open Access and attacking its proponents, traditional publishers should make imaginative and innovative efforts to build their businesses around the needs of their customers rather than around their desire to continue a model that may be lucrative, but that is no longer satisfactory to science or society

Open Access Publishing And Scholarly Societies: A Guide

assess the options available to them for the future of their journal publishing programmes. Though the option of keeping the status quo of subscription-based journals is discussed, the focus is on conversion of existing journals to open access, either in one go, or via an intermediate managed transition phase. This guide doesn’t address issues to do with the conversion to electronic publishing, and neither those to do with basic business planning. The latter have been dealt with in an earlier publication by the Open Society Institute: Guide to Business Planning for Converting a Subscription-based Journal to Open Access, Edition 3, February 20041. It is assumed that journals under consideration are currently operating with a satisfactory inflow of article submissions and also that they are either already available in electronic form, or that the choice is already taken to publish them electronically. Whilst electronic publishing is a sine qua non for open access, it is fast becoming a condition of being able to survive in journal publishing regardless of whether the journal is open access or operating on a subscription model. This guide also doesn’t address issues to do with library budget concerns other than in the context of the diminishing sustainability of the traditional subscription model of scholarly journal publishing

Necessity is the Mother of Innovation

In the debate about the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals, we have seen and heard much concern expressed for the health of the publishing industry and the health of societies with a publishing program. Most arguments seem to center on these issues. And they are very important, of course, especially to the publishing organizations concerned, be they scholarly societies or commercial publishers. They fear for the demise of their subscription-based model and the seemingly secure income streams it generates. Societies argue that they need the income from publishing to sustain the other important activities that they are engaged in, such as the awarding of scholarships, the organizing of conferences, public outreach, and educational programs. Commercial publishers cannot argue that losing revenue means having to stop charitable activities, but they gratefully regard societies as a convenient bulwark behind which they can safely shelter from the effects of any criticism. Societies, after all, are part of the scientific community and will, as such, be treated with much more care than commercial publishers by those who want to change the way of scientific publishing, or so the theory goes. And of course, there is some justification for that. But curiously, there is something missing from the debate. We heard little about the health and effectiveness of science. Yet that has to be the prime concern. Publishers and scholarly societies derive their raison d'être from serving science. It is the obligation of all participants in this debate to put science first. That does not seem to happen, however. If the concerns of science were put first, and the business of providing a service to the world of research were to follow rather than take pole position, we could take the discussion further, and debate as to how science is best served. There will be different ideas about that, of course. The vantage point of a scholarly society, including its perspective on business, is bound to be different from that of a commercial publisher. But a rich and frank exchange of those ideas can only benefit the outcome. Alas, an opportunity seems to have been missed by many in the furor surrounding the NIH proposals

Necessity is the Mother of Innovation

In the debate about the National Institutes of Health (NIH) proposals, we have seen and heard much concern expressed for the health of the publishing industry and the health of societies with a publishing program. Most arguments seem to center on these issues. And they are very important, of course, especially to the publishing organizations concerned, be they scholarly societies or commercial publishers. They fear for the demise of their subscription-based model and the seemingly secure income streams it generates. Societies argue that they need the income from publishing to sustain the other important activities that they are engaged in, such as the awarding of scholarships, the organizing of conferences, public outreach, and educational programs. Commercial publishers cannot argue that losing revenue means having to stop charitable activities, but they gratefully regard societies as a convenient bulwark behind which they can safely shelter from the effects of any criticism. Societies, after all, are part of the scientific community and will, as such, be treated with much more care than commercial publishers by those who want to change the way of scientific publishing, or so the theory goes. And of course, there is some justification for that. But curiously, there is something missing from the debate. We heard little about the health and effectiveness of science. Yet that has to be the prime concern. Publishers and scholarly societies derive their raison d'être from serving science. It is the obligation of all participants in this debate to put science first. That does not seem to happen, however. If the concerns of science were put first, and the business of providing a service to the world of research were to follow rather than take pole position, we could take the discussion further, and debate as to how science is best served. There will be different ideas about that, of course. The vantage point of a scholarly society, including its perspective on business, is bound to be different from that of a commercial publisher. But a rich and frank exchange of those ideas can only benefit the outcome. Alas, an opportunity seems to have been missed by many in the furor surrounding the NIH proposals

Loaves and Fishes as Food for Thought

An analogy of the biblical loaves and fishes, and the limitless sharing of (scientific) information

Public funding, public knowledge, publication

The argument that publicly funded research should be publicly available is a valid one, but it cannot be the most important one in the discussion as to whether research should be freely accessible. The overriding argument is that freely accessible research optimises the scientific process as well as its ‘translation’ into societal benefits. Free access, or ‘open access’ as it is widely called, can be brought about by making full use of the technologies available to the world, particularly the internet, but it does need a change in traditional economic models of publishing

Open Access: principle, practice, progress

The principle of open access is gaining currency and is not often questioned any more.The discussion has shifted to practical issues of bringing about open access, of which there are many. This shift, however, is progress for open access. Understanding is growing of the exact nature of practical problems, of how the open access publishing model works and what the underlying issues are that objections to the model actually address. Based on a paper presented at the UKSG Seminar ‘Scientific Publications: Free for all?’, The Geological Society, London,Tuesday 23 November 2004

Faculty of 1000: a way of identifying what are currently considered the most interesting research articles in biology

Faculty of 1000 is a new reviewing, evaluation and rating system of primary scientific papers in the area of biology, produced by Biology Reports Limited and published by BioMed Central Limited (www.biomedcentral.com). Both companies are part of The Current Science Group. The service will identify the current most interesting and most important research papers in biology, picked by a group of over 1000 leading international researchers from any journal, and provide reasons why these articles are the most interesting and important. The service is dynamic, updated every day, but it also keeps an archive of all listings, fully accessible and searchable for subscribers

Submission to the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee's Inquiry into Scientific Publications

This is BioMed Central's submission to the UK House of Commons Science and Technology Commission's Inquiry into scientific publications. The case is made that it is urgently needed that scientific research articles be made available with open access. The Government can help, particularly if the research is funded with public money. Questions posed by the Committee are answered in the document

Open access and the transformation of science – the time is ripe

Presentation at the International Conference on Strategies and Policies for Open Access to Scientific Information in Beijing, June 200