Pages

Thursday, April 24, 2008

Nature Publishing Group's commitment to open access publishing

Nature Medicine's editor Juan Carlos Lopez on open access publishing:

I must confess that the talk got a little boring when people started asking me questions about open-access publishing. It was fascinating to see how difficult it was for some people to understand that scientific publishing costs money, and that there are different models to recover your costs - the author-pays model, the subscription model, and everything in between. The talk got boring (at least to me) because I have very little patience with this discussion when people stop putting forward compelling arguments in support of their ideas or, as in this case, when people just don't seem to want to get the simple point I was trying to make: as there are different models, publishing groups ought to choose the model that works best for each of them. In our case, the subscription-based model is the only one that seems viable for the time being. How difficult is it to get this point?




5 comments:

  1. it's difficult to stomach because it is our work, our ideas, our writing!! we even review the work before it's published. For FREE.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not in academia and haven't had a publication since 1987, so maybe you can help.

    I thought that if your work is funded by the NIH it will have to be made Open Access or disclosed somehow, right?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jo,

    Couldn't have put it better myself.

    Can I suggest that you check out the links I included in my comment on post 'Open Science' on AJC's blog yesterday.

    If my understanding is correct, I don't think the views of Lopez in that blog represents that of NPG as a whole.

    As an aside, I only found out recently that Nature only publish 8% of Manuscripts submitted. Does that mean that all of the 92% rejects are bull? Of course not.

    The problem as Harold Varmus puts it is 'CNS Disease' CNS = Cell, Nature, Science.

    You can read about 'CNS Disease' in Nature Network here

    ReplyDelete
  4. @frog: Correct, however Nature says:
    NPG's licence policy (http://tinyurl.com/4etxvz) is consistent with a newly issued requirement by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) that authors self-archive published research that the NIH has funded: "When a manuscript is accepted for publication in an NPG journal, authors are encouraged to submit the author's version of the accepted paper (the unedited manuscript) to PubMedCentral or other appropriate funding body's archive, for public release six months after publication."
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v452/n7190/full/7190xc.html

    @mcdawg - love the Varmus quote :-)

    ReplyDelete
  5. NIH public access law explained

    Category: Open Science
    Posted on: April 17, 2008 10:01 AM, by Coturnix

    Peter Suber wrote the most clear, brief and to-the-point explanation of the new law (PDF). Worth reading and bookmarking. Along with the explanation of how it works, Peter also provided this handy table of myths about the new law that some of the dinosaur publishers are trying to push - save it, print it out and have it in your pocket when you go to meetings.

    ReplyDelete