Issues in Scholarly Communication is a newsletter produced by Paula Kaufman, University Librarian and Dean of Libraries, for the Illinois community. Entries from 2001-2005 newsletter are available.
« Writers Ask Oprah, Nicely | Main | THE ACCESS PRINCIPLE »
Open access has evolved into one of the most contentious debates within the scientific community in recent years. During the past 18 months, the dialogue on how best to disseminate published research has been steadily gaining momentum. Advocates of open access argue that the public should be able to access all online scientific literature for free. They maintain that the public has a right to access the results of federally funded research supported by their tax dollars. Opponents insist that the current subscription-based system does allow the public access to the literature, albeit not for free. They argue that subscriptions are needed to support the costs associated with journal publication and online archiving. In October 2003, the Public Library of Science (PLoS) launched its first peer-reviewed, open-access journal, PLoS Biology. The new journal uses a publishing model in which authors, not subscribers, pay publication costs. While the journal's contents are freely available for anyone to view and use, authors must pay an article-submission fee of $1,500. PLoS has since launched PLoS Medicine and plans to launch three more open-access journals later this year: PLoS Genetics, PLoS Computational Biology, and PLoS Pathogens. The National Institutes of Health heightened the open-access debate last year when it announced its draft open-access policy in September. During the review period, NIH received nearly 6,000 comments from publishers, researchers, and librarians, all stating their cases either for or against such a policy. Just last month, NIH revealed its final version of the policy after amending the draft based on the comments received. The policy strongly encourages—but does not require—scientists to submit peer-reviewed manuscripts resulting from NIH-funded research within 12 months to PubMed Central, the agency's free digital archive of biomedical research. C&EN's third Point-Counterpoint brings together two of the voices in the open-access debate. Richard J. Roberts, winner of the 1993 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine, is the director of bioinformatics at New England Biolabs in Beverly, Mass. He is also a senior executive editor of Nucleic Acids Research, which is published by Oxford University Press. Roberts, along with 24 other Nobel Laureates, sent a letter to the members of Congress on Aug. 26, 2004, urging them to support free access to taxpayer-funded research. Arguing the other side of the issue is Peter Banks, publisher for the American Diabetes Association. Banks is currently on the steering committee for patientINFORM, a project aimed at providing more biomedical research along with interpretation and context to patients. The project is set to debut this spring. Banks is also president of the Society of National Association Publications, composed of 300 nonprofit publishers. Chemical & Engineering News 3/7/05 http://pubs.acs.org/cen/government/8310/8310openaccess.html
Posted by at May 18, 2005 4:21 PM
University LibraryFor comments on this page contact: Kaite Newman
