Recent Articles
OA papers encourage a critical discussion
Aug 28, 2008 Highlight Leave a comment
In an April 2008 paper, The Reversal of Fortunes: Trends in County Mortality and Cross-County Mortality Disparities in the United States from PLoS Medicine, Majid Ezzati and his colleagues made a shocking revelation. While the overall average life expectancy for the United States has been increasing, Ezzati et al. found that many counties did not experience this increase, and some even suffered from a decrease in their average life expectancy.
Additional studies, published in OA, have further examined similar critical aspects of health disparity. One paper, published in September 2006 in PLoS Medicine entitled Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties in the United States, described the division of America into eight distinct groups with significantly varying disease burdens. Christopher Murray and his colleagues brought to light a shocking problem that must be dealt with by the U.S. public health system.
These are only two of several papers published via OA that delve into the study of the effects of race, location, and income on disease burden and life expectancy. By ensuring that all are able to view this research, Open Access has encouraged discussion on this very important topic.
Nathan
Peer Review — What exactly does it mean?
Aug 18, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
Be Updated
Aug 8, 2008 Sponsored Leave a comment
If you simply want to get updated with all the Coolest gadgets that are in the market, you no longer need to go to the stores and ask them one by one because all you need to do is log in to www.gadgetadvisor.com and from there, you will really get to learn a lot of things and in addition to that, you will also be able to grab some important matters that needs to be dealt with. If in case there will be a lot of things that you have to know about, there is a thin chance that you will be marking everything with what you only need and not merely what you wanted. So, the latest gadgets do not always mean that they are the best and the coolest gadgets mean they are in the right price. There are many things that you can update yourself about so you just have to make sure with everything.
Also, how can I not like a blog that has Garmin GPSMAP 640 GPS Navigation System
A rugged, waterproof but costly GPS system review.
* Evaluating Online Backup Services
This Review is something I have been looking at recently and this review was very helpful in looking at a couple of choices I have.
Publishers Tarnishing OA
Aug 7, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
Varying OA Business Models
Jul 28, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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. In order to display the material online, one must have a website. They need low cost web hosting. And considering today’s economy, it is hard to find cheap web hosting.
Nathan
Spotlight on Internet Scientific Publications
Jul 27, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
Supporting PLoS
Jul 13, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
Numbers Speak Louder than Words
Jul 7, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
OA Obstacles
Jun 30, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
Open Access in the News
Jun 25, 2008 Discussion Leave a comment
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
