For those of you who are involved in biology-related research, or would just like to support those activities, take a look at an interesting development. PLoS is a not-for-profit organization devoted to open-source publishing (on the internet) of peer-reviewed research in biology, medicine, medical microbiology, genetics and computational biology.

http://www.plos.org/

I've watched PLoS and supported them financially for the past several years. Why? (1) Because I use bioscience publications in my daily work; and (2) Because most basic research that's conducted in these fields is financed with my (and your) tax dollars, yet most of it is published in journals that require expensive subscriptions to access the full-text articles. Many of these journals operate on a profit basis. Being financed with public funds, I feel that the results should be in the public domain without further personal or institutional expense. PLoS believes this to, and they're making it happen with flair! Their Board of Directors and journal editors are like a "who's who" of world-class scientists. They are setting a review and publishing standard equal to the best of the traditional print journals, and by doing so they are attracting high quality submissions.

PLoS publishes under what is called the "Creative Commons Attribution License". Under this license, we the public can access the full text of all publications, and much more. The license is paraphrased by PLoS as follows: "Under the CCAL, authors retain ownership of the copyright for their article, but authors allow anyone to download, reuse, reprint, modify, distribute, and/or copy articles in PLoS journals, so long as the original authors and source are credited. This broad license was developed to facilitate open access to, and free use of, original works of all types. Applying this standard license to your work will ensure your right to make your work freely and openly available."

Help stick it to the traditional publishers. Go check out PLoS and even give them some money if you like the idea. Its tax deductible.

Steve
.

 

I want Dr Deans opinion on this one. How about it Dean?


fltsfshr

 

Jeez, I just woke up, haven't had my coffee, and totally unprepared for a test. I haven't researched it yet, but on its surface I like the idea - particularly as it pertains to medicine and genetics. It would open up the lines of communication and sharing of information between the disciplines of which there is normally very little.
However, I reserve the right to change my mind after I've investigated further, or if I'm simply feeling contrary.

 

(Steve -- Where in "Central IL"? I grew up in Peoria, and having an S in a place like Peoria would be a real kick, I think -- a greyhound amidst the cocker spaniels and mastiffs.)

Now, back on topic.

With the Internet, publishing just got way cheaper than it's been, so both the commercial publishers (Elsevier is one, and I'm an editor of theirs) and the society journals (in which most of my physical science papers are published) are scrambling.

The society journals operate on a not-for-profit basis and charge page fees ($125 per page plus extra for color pictures isn't uncommon) plus fairly nominal subscription rates.

The commercial publishers often waive page fees but have huge subscription rates, particularly for libraries, that often involve "bundles" of journals so that, as an institution, you get what you really want along with others that you may really not.

Now, most of the cost of journal publishing has been in the production of paper magazines and mailing them. But there are still costs associated with Internet publishing, particularly if quality control is maintained, both publication quality and content quality.

Content quality, in particular, is a real issue with the current generation of e-journals, at least in the fields I'm familiar with. Of course, this will improve with time and as more people use this medium.

One nice thing about e-journals is their flexibility. In addition to Elsevier, I'm also involved with another publisher that operates something called "TheScientificWorld," and they sell individual articles (typically for $10 or so, I think) rather than whole journal issues or subscriptions. While they're still trapped in second-class status in terms of content quality, their publication quality is quite good and we're all working hard to get the content quality up.

It's important to remember that scientific journals are our lifeline to the body of knowledge we've created as a society. They need to be a bullet-proof archive for the future, if they're to retain their value. I've already had problems as an editor with people who use web sites as references, web sites that have subsequently vanished. Such phantom references do not advance science.

In terms of the PLoS, I have to say that the word "modify" in the following bothers me greatly:

For me, that's something of a showstopper, because it says, in effect, that people can change your work yet must give you credit for it. Without careful policing, this can lead to abuse rather quickly, particularly given the potential ephemerality of the original source material, should web sites go away. HPH

 

Folks, I made an innocent typo in the title of my thread. Its Public Library of Science......and I thought I was being a good advocate! I'm a one-hand typist until my injured hand rehabilitates. Some typos sneak through.

With a title like ["Pubic Library of Science"....a worthy cause], I'd have thought the topic would have been viewed more.

DrCloud,

I live near Decatur and I've spent much time exploring backroads along the IL River between Peoria and Princeton, the Macknaw River Valley, and in the hills between Mt. Caroll and Galena in my S2000. You have a nice playground near you! I totaled my ride in November 2005. Now I'm down to a die-cast model and this forum to keep me interested. I will probably buy another in a few years.

I believe that page fees for publishing are usually charged to the grant that funded the research, or to some other grant the PI has open. I see no problem with that part of it; there will always be publishing cost in any venue. Where I bump into the restricted viewing policies of some journals is usually after finding an abstract that interests me in an NCBI or other search, and then being unable to follow up for immediate details for want of a required subscription. Sometimes I can find it in a nearby library and sometimes I can't. I'll pursue it further if seems important to have, but that can be hard to predict from an abstract.

This is doubly problematic when chasing the details of a methods section. Often one pays and waits for the desired reprint only to find that they just cite yet another journal article ("enzyme X was purified according to the procedure of...." off on another goose chase). If I have other fish to fry, then sometimes I just skip it if I can't reach the detail quickly. "Cry me a river" some might say, but I'm guessing others do this too. Its a fact of contemporary research life. If its important, my research will probably lead me to it again and then I'll order it, but, time is lost and that's just the best case......it may not happen that way and ignorance is not good.

You have a good point that knowledge should be durable in time. Who's to say what the most durable format of the future will be? It may not be the hard-copy model of the present. The U.S. Patent office database is a good example of the benefit of electronic format. Even though its backed up by hard copy, it would be far less useable in the absence of electronic searching and access to full text and images for no cost to database users (other than their tax dollars). I would argue that the knowledge-dissemination missions of the patent system and scientific publishing are similar (not identical), and that the patent office does it better.

You have another good point about republishing altered content. Open source software publishing models allow this and it seems to work. The PLoS site shows some examples of how that could occurr, and naturally they're good ones. I'm sure they're aware of how that it go South, but, plagerism in science publishing already happens. Academic bodies are the disciplinarians when its detected and I don't think that would change. The Open Source model could make some cases murkier to prove, I suppose.

At present PLoS is an experiment and we don't how it'll turn out. It could be good, and it could fail the durability test. I'd like to find out, which is why I support it.

Steve