Latest Entry
Aug 18, 2008 Discussion
There has been significant debate recently as to the exact definition of “peer review”. Depending upon who you ask, you will likely get very different opinions. A commonly accepted definition involves the anonymous review by two selected reviewers with expertise in the area, and then a final decision by the editor in charge.
However, with the dawn of the OA movement, it is necessary to open up the discussion again. Several OA publishers focus on technical scientific soundness as opposed to perceived importance. As many peer review methods focus on weeding out the “unimportant” papers, new methods were developed. Unfortunately, some OA publishers take advantage of the movement (as discussed in Publishers Tarnishing OA), and quality control is critical in order to maintain the good image of the entire OA movement.
In other words, while we must understand that one strict definition is insufficient given the broad spectrum of journal focuses, it is also critical that rigorous scientific standards are upheld. Without these standards, OA could devolve into a pseudoscientific profit-making venture for unethical publishers.
Nathan
Recent Entries
Aug 7, 2008 Discussion
As all of you know, I have lavished extensive praise upon the entire Open Access movement. However, some recent reports have greatly worried me. The entire movement is only as strong as its weakest link, at it appears that some of these weaker links have been engaging in less-than-honorable practices.
A recent report by Richard Poynder examined Bentham Science Publishers, which had recently begun publishing several open access journals. While on its face this development seems quite positive, the methods through which Bentham recruited authors and editors seem rather questionable. According to Poynder, several researchers were receiving bulk mail invitations to submit research to, or even edit for, journals entirely outside of their fields of expertise.
Unfortunately, the list of questionable OA publishers is quite longer than Bentham alone. Poynder has now focused his efforts on Scientific Journals International, another OA publisher apparently engaging in unsolicited bulk mail and other offenses. If any of you have more information on Scientific Journals International, please contact Richard Poynder.
The truth is that OA publishers engaging in questionable activities are harming the entire Open Access movement, as they provide OA opponents with greater ammunition to criticize the movement. It is quite possible that unethical OA publishers are greater enemies of the movement than closed access publishers themselves.
Nathan
Jul 28, 2008 Discussion
In my most recent post yesterday (Spotlight on Internet Scientific Publications), I briefly discussed the method through which ISPUB generates revenue as compared to the business models of BioMed Central or Public Library of Science. However, I believe we have only hit the tip of the iceberg with regard to this critical topic, as business model is one of the most defining features of the entire OA movement.
There are two major types of OA publishers: for-profit or not-for-profit. These can often be identified with a simple glance at the URL — for-profits usually have a “.com” domain name, while not-for-profits will end with “.org”. However, even these distinctions are not sufficient in order to fully understand the entire spectrum of OA publishers. In order to simplify the approach, I will discuss each major model individually using specific and well known examples.
The Public Library of Science operates under a not-for-profit model that draws revenue from several sources, including membership fees, publishing fees, and some advertisements. BioMed Central is quite similar, drawing resources from publishing fees and advertisements, differing primarily due to its for-profit approach. Finally, ISPUB funds its operations entirely through online advertisements, sparing both the readers and authors from fees.
Despite the obvious differences, one commonality that unites the business models of all OA publishers is their lack of any sort of cost to read the material, thus facilitating the dissemination of information and the acceleration of scientific advance.
Nathan
Jul 27, 2008 Discussion
The OA publisher Internet Scientific Publications, or ISPUB, was founded in 1996 by Olivier Wenker in order to capitalize upon the Internet’s awesome power to disseminate information. This publisher currently has over 84 journals and 5000 published papers according to its website.
ISPUB is entirely electronic, and thus can eliminate all of the costs associated with printing paper journals. It draws its revenue from relevant advertisements and corporate sponsorships, and therefore is completely free for both the author and the reader. ISPUB is also a for-profit LLC, hence the “.com” in its URL. However, it is not necessarily unique in this regard. In fact, BioMed Central is another for-profit OA publisher that comes to mind.
Despite the alternative business method, ISPUB ensures that it strictly follows the standards of peer review. Each submitted manuscript is subjected to full review by a board of editors and the editor-in-chief.
Nathan
Jul 13, 2008 Discussion
As many of you well know, publishing and maintaining high quality scientific journals is quite expensive. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), the publisher of several OA journals, achieves this end primarily through publication fees paid by the authors or their institutions.
Unfortunately, sometimes the cost of operation exceeds the revenue, and PLoS must rely on charitable support from private individuals such as you and I. Some great ways to support PLoS include becoming a member or making a donation. Of course, these private contributions in no way affect the final decision concerning a submitted paper. However, they most certainly support the noble cause of making scientific research more available to all those interested. And for that, I encourage all of you to do your best to help support the OA movement through monetary contributions.
Nathan
Jul 7, 2008 Discussion
In this blog, I have discussed extensively my position that OA is superior to the closed access model in numerous ways. Most of my assertions have been derived from logical deduction, personal experience, and general trends. However, I have yet to present perhaps the strongest evidence supporting the OA model — numbers.
In a 2006 paper in PLoS Biology entitled Citation Advantage of Open Access Articles, Gunther Eysenbach investigated how publishing approach (either OA or closed access) affected the number of citations a paper received. This number of citations is a definite reflection of the dissemination of the paper through the scientific community.
Eysenbach found a definite quantitative citation advantage for OA papers over closed access papers. He wrote,
We found strong evidence that, even in a journal that is widely available in research libraries, OA articles are more immediately recognized and cited by peers than non-OA articles published in the same journal. OA is likely to benefit science by accelerating dissemination and uptake of research findings.
With similar evidence mounting, I feel that the scientific advantage of publishing OA will build, encouraging ever greater numbers of researchers to join the OA movement.
Nathan
Jun 30, 2008 Discussion
It is approximated that there are over 20,000 legitimate peer-reviewed scholarly journals in existence today. Unfortunately, only around 10 to 15 percent of these journals are open access. This frequency is much too low, and quite frankly disappointing.
One possible cause of this is the existence of an option through which one may engage in “open access lite” as I call it. That is, depositing the paper or abstract in a central open access repository such as PubMed. This method is in fact very popular, and while it does offer some access to all, it simultaneously limits the ability of purely OA publishers to proliferate and prosper.
One logical antidote to this problem would be to encourage researchers to go 100% OA and actually publish their papers in an open access journal. Of course, this and similar assertions will be perpetually countered by those journals which profit off of the closed access model, as they lobby continuously to prolong the longevity of closed access publishing.
Nathan
Jun 25, 2008 Discussion
One of the most exciting signs of progress in the Open Access (OA) movement is the widespread lay media coverage of discoveries published via OA. On my last post, I touched briefly on the subject, however it is clearly a topic that requires in-depth discussion and analysis.
Over at PLoS ONE there is an In the News section, with a different paper highlighted each week. The currently spotlighted paper has clearly received extensive coverage, with discussion popping up in places such as BBC News, The Guardian, and The New York Times. However, this is merely the tip of the iceberg, as media coverage of OA articles has been quite extensive. Science News discusses on average two to three papers published in PLoS ONE alone every single issue. The total number of OA papers discussed in this periodical is even higher.
This brings us to one of the key advantages of OA. Suppose that a scientist reads an exciting article in a periodical concerning a recently published paper, and hurries online to find its location. With closed access, the potential reader must jump through a series of hoops, such as creating a profile, logging in, purchasing the article (the list goes on) and very well may abandon the pursuit. In stark contrast, if that paper is OA, the potential reader nearly immediately becomes an actual reader who can spread the word or advance the research.
Nathan
Jun 23, 2008 Discussion
While perusing PLoS ONE recently, I noticed something that was quite frankly surprising. Under the New and Noted section of the front page, I saw an interesting article entitled Preference Transitivity and Symbolic Representation in Capuchin Monkeys (Cebus apella).
The research team, led by by Elsa Addessi , found that Capuchin monkeys could comprehend symbolic representations of food. A different “token” gained a different treat, and soon the monkeys began to synthesize this mental association. Each monkey had individual tastes, and chose the item that represented its preferred treat. This is surprising news, given the significant evolutionary divergence between humans and Capuchin monkeys and is all in all a profound discovery.
Despite the ground-braking nature of the work, I found that its most interesting aspect concerns its coverage in NatureNews of Nature Publishing Group, publisher of the journal epitomizing closed access elitism (Nature). In fact, Nature had recently published a letter disparaging the entire open access (OA) philosophy, declaring it harmful and counterproductive. I could not help but notice that Nature Publishing Group nearly simultaneously prints a scathing attack and a subtle affirmation of the merits of OA. Perhaps they should make up their minds.
Nathan
Jun 20, 2008 Discussion
PLoS, or the Public Library of Science, was born in 2000 as the brainchild of Patrick Brown, Harold Varmus, and Michael Eisen. It originally took the form of an online open letter that was supported by tens of thousands of scientists from around the world. This radical idea gradually took the form of a full fledged and prestigious scientific publisher. It currently has a whopping seven journals, including: PLoS Biology, PLoS Medicine, PLoS ONE, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Pathogens, PLoS Genetics, and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases.
PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology have reached the pinnacle of their respective subject areas, with ISI impact factors of 13.8 and 14.1 respectively. This profound success simply demonstrates that open access and prestige are anything but mutually exclusive. Overall, PLoS has published thousands of excellent papers that are made available for all interested.
The Public Library of Science is a 501(c) nonprofit organization that relies upon both publication fees and private donations to continue in its mission to throw open the locked doors that once hid scientific research. Recognizing its foundation upon the internet, PLoS encourages participation in the online community, including its very own blog. PLoS ONE, in fact, allows online users to rate and discuss content. In a way, PLoS is the American Revolution of 21st Century science, returning the power to the people in a uniquely noble manner.
Nathan
