Nature Web Focus: Access to the literature: the debate continuesThe Internet is profoundly changing how scientists work and publish. New business models are being tested by publishers, including open access, in which the author pays and content is free to the user. This ongoing web focus will explore current trends and future possibilities. Each week, the website will publish specially commissioned insights and analysis from leading scientists, librarians, publishers and other stakeholders, as well as key links, and articles from our archive. All content is.Analysing the scientific literature in its online context- April 29, 2004 The free versus fee debate over access to the scientific literature is a lively one, but it is also important to keep in mind the bigger picture, that the Internet is bringing about a much broader evolution in the way scientists work and communicate. Information and value increasingly lies not just in the published article but in relationships between articles, in the links among authors and papers, and in less formal communication among users and communities through Weblogs (or 'blogs'),...http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/18.html CrossRef launches CrossRef Search, powered By Google- April 29, 2004 Imagine searching on Google and being able to restrict results to articles published in peer-reviewed journals. A step in that direction was taken this month when CrossRef, a not-for-profit association of publishers, and nine of its member, launched the CrossRef Search Pilot, powered by Google. From a search box on any one publisher's site, a user can perform a Google search across the content of all nine.http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/17.html Open Access needs to get 'back to basics'- April 23, 2004 As manager of the network of SURF, the Dutch agency responsible for promoting information technology in higher education, I support Open Access as defined by Jan Velterop. But when I read the contributions of my supposed Open Access allies in this Nature Focus, and in other forums, I feel my enthusiasm waning. It seems that supporters of Open Access are unable to agree on almost anything. The broadest consensus they seem to have achieved is one of doubt.http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/16.html Open Access ignoring lessons of dot-com bubble- April 22, 2004 In his recent contribution to this focus, Jan Velterop, Publisher of the UK-based Open-Access publisher BioMed Central (BMC), asserts that criticism of Open Access publishing as economically unsustainable is just wishful thinking on the part of traditional publishers. He states that any business that can deliver what customers need or want, at a price that they are willing to pay, is sustainable.http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/15.html Open access by the article: an idea whose time has come- April 15, 2004 Scientific societies are often reluctant to embrace Open Access (OA) because they are concerned how this will affect the financial viability of their journals. But there may be a risk-free, profitable means for learned societies to move towards the OA that many of their members want, without committing themselves to radical changes in their cost-recovery model. They have only to offer their authors, for a fair price, the option of buying OA for their articles -- authors can simply pay an extra..http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/13.html Is free affordable- April 15, 2004 The Journal of Clinical Investigation (JCI) has been providing free and unrestricted access to its content ever since it went online in 1996. We have been able to support the costs of this online Open Access through a mix of page charges and income from subscriptions to the print version of JCI, which itself was first published in 1924.http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/14.html Experimenting with Open Access publishing- April 7, 2004 In a previous Nature web debate we called on the scientific community, publishers and librarians to work more closely together to explore new ways of recovering the costs of publishing that would encourage widespread, cost-effective dissemination of online journals, immediately after publication. There has been considerable debate of access issues in recent months, including an inquiry by the UK government's Science and Technology Committee, to which OUP has contributed both written and oral...http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/12.html How journals can boost access, 'realistically'- April 7, 2004 Not-for-profit publishers can bring a moderate and reasoned approach to the issue of access to literature that rises above the noise and polemicism which unfortunately currently characterizes much of the debate. Their journals are generally run by and for practising scientists; it is arguable, therefore, that their policy is focused on sustainability and service to the scientific community, free from the need to maximize profits. At the Journal of Cell Biology (JCB) I believe that we have...http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/11.html The myth of 'unsustainable' Open Access journals- April 1, 2004 Myths, if repeated often and widely, can perpetuate and beget new myths. The alleged unsustainability of the input-paid Open Access publishing model is such a second-order myth. The notion that the model is unsustainable has been expounded time and again and persists even in some recent contributions to this forum. One could be forgiven for believing that the judgement of unsustainability must be rooted in a deep understanding of what the Open Access model actually entails, but that doesnt...http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/10.html On being scientific about science publishing- April 1, 2004 The great paradox of the movement towards open access to scientific journals is that no one is opposed to it and almost everyone is sure they belong to it. So why is there such contentiousness in the air Can we not bring the dispassion and collaboration of good science into this domain For it seems that no one disagrees with the proposition that the results of research should be distributed as widely as possible and in particular that economic disadvantage should not prevent access to critical..http://www.nature.com/nature/focus/accessdebate/9.html |