OA Obstacles
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
Tags: debate, Open Access, opposition, publishing, repository
Open Access in the News
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
Tags: coverage, news, Open Access
Nature Monkeys Around
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
Spotlight on PLoS
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
A Treatise on Scientific Publishing
Jun 18, 2008 Discussion
While the OA movement has gained significant momentum especially over the past few years, it still has many detractors. A simple Google search will yield several vitriolic attacks on the very idea. Of course, the big name closed access journals like Science or Nature will never abandon the exclusive elitism generated by their pay-per-view policies.
However, the ultimate source of the publishers’ power lies in the hands of the researchers, just as government rests upon the people. With an understanding of this fundamental relationship, we can come to a fundamental truth and a definitive conclusion:
Truth: Closed access publishers can only continue to exist if researchers continue to publish with them.
Conclusion: In order to ensure the equitable access of scientific research for all through Open Access, researchers must boycott closed access publishers.
Nathan
Open Access Building Momentum
Jun 13, 2008 Discussion
Effective 7 April of 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) initiated a ground-braking policy that requires all research funded by NIH to be deposited in an open access repository, such as PubMed Central, upon acceptance for publication. This policy ensures that research funded by taxpayers is readily available to those taxpaying funders.
This OA breakthrough came relatively soon after Harvard University’s Faculty of Arts and Sciences (FAS) unanimously approved a measure that will deposit all scholarly papers produced by members of the FAS in an open access repository produced and maintained by Harvard. This move represents simply another victory for the OA movement. The professors at FAS hope that other centers of higher learning will follow in the OA path.
These recent advancements reflect the inexorable trend toward OA that has permeated the scientific community. With the increasing availability of research to all, it seems that the resulting increased academic exchange and discussion will accelerate the process.
Nathan
Open Access and Developing Nations
Jun 12, 2008 Discussion
Academic research is often described as the act of “standing on the shoulders of giants.” However, those in impoverished and developing nations without access to the funds required by closed access publishers are often denied access to critical background research, thus snuffing out an important source of scientific illumination.
The dawn of the internet has been a key player in helping to level out the global economic playing field. The onset of the Open Access (OA) movement has extended this equalizing power to the realm of academia. Now the brilliant minds of poor nations can have unrestricted access to the information they need to advance science.
Some may argue that the publishing fees of OA publishers (sometimes thousands of dollars) in fact limit the ability of researchers in the developing world to share their research. However, this attack is clearly unfounded. Every single OA publisher I have found to date offers fee waivers for those without the funds and ensures that ability to pay in no way affects the peer review process.
I think the benefits far outweigh the perceived drawbacks with regard to OA and its effects on those researchers in developing nations. As more and more capable minds begin contributing to scientific literature via OA, the inevitable result is nothing less than human advancement.
Nathan
PLoS ONE Ratings
Jun 11, 2008 Discussion
One of the most innovative features of PLoS ONE is the ratings system. As the papers published in the journal are primarily selected based upon scientific rigor and communication, PLoS ONE encourages the rating of the papers in order to identify the most interesting and significant results as judged by the scientific community.
Unfortunately, it appears that the ratings system has not been used as much as had been hoped. There are several possible reasons for this, including
1) The time crunch that affects nearly all participants in academia,
2) A lack of expertise in the field of the paper, preventing an adequate review,
3) An unwillingness to criticize those papers one deems unimportant.
While these setbacks are most likely simply the birth pains of an emerging application, I encourage all of you to rate articles, for example, an article about lab hot plate, after reading them in order to expedite the process of fully integrating the ratings system into the academic mainstream.
Nathan
First Post
Jun 10, 2008 Discussion
Hello all,
This is my first post on the new Open Access Blog. Here, we will be discussing the latest news and advancements in the Open Access (OA) science movement, including ground-braking research published in Open Access journals. On the left there will be a list of some links to featured OA journals. I encourage an open forum, so I hope that both opponents and proponents of OA will engage in productive debate and discussion.
Nathan
Tags: Discussion, Open Access, Science
