Genome Technology - Open Access Special

Today's issue of Genome Technology contains six nice articles about Open Access:

Ready or Not, Here Comes Open Access:

Here's the central conundrum of the open access debate: you can't find anyone who's actually opposed to it. Really. For all the grandstanding and arguing, the fiercest opponents and supporters alike tend to support the underlying principle -- that freely accessible data would be a boon to the greater scientific enterprise. In an ideal world, most everyone agrees, there would be no restrictions on scientific results. It's the real-world practical concerns that provide the point of contention.

Open Access: What Does It All Mean?:

The pure form of open access is considered research that's made freely available for reuse in any way another scientist might dream up. In general, as long as the original author is credited for what's his, any other scientist can add to the work with no strings attached.

Many Flavors of Open Access:

When people refer to open access journals, there are actually a number of different models that they have in mind. Nick Fowler, head of strategy at Elsevier, breaks them down into the four main flavors.

An Acquisition, an Association, and a Celebration:

In the past month alone, the movement for open access saw a number of milestones. For starters, the group celebrated its first holiday -- Open Access Day was held on October 14, with a number of organizations taking note of the occasion. Community bloggers made a special effort to raise awareness for the concept, releasing essays, videos, and other materials to introduce unfamiliar scientists to it.

PubMed Central: The 'Mildly Destabilizing' Compromise:

PubMed Central has become a critical component of the scientific research landscape, but 10 years ago it was just a gleam in Harold Varmus's eye. Originally conceived as E-Biomed, the vision was far more broad-reaching than what eventually became PubMed. "The original idea for PubMed Central was probably too radical," Varmus says. "I probably went too far initially."

Reluctant Publishers and the Birth of PLoS:

Pat Brown, Michael Eisen, and Harold Varmus have become the face of the Public Library of Science, but none of them ever set out to be a publisher.

[Hat-tip: Michael Eisen]

More like this

As many of you may be aware, yesterday was the first day of the implementation of the new NIH law which requires all articles describing research funded by NIH to be deposited into PubMed Central within 12 months of publication. Folks at SPARC have put together a list of resources one can consult…
When three separate people send you an article in Nature it gets your attention. Since I have a paid subscription to Nature, my attention was ready to be grabbed anyway, but I hadn't yet read this story so a tip of the hat to my informants. I also have paid personal subscriptions to Science and a…
Yesterday's lab meeting went fine. Afterwards I got a chance to flip through some journals that I've ignored for the past 2-3 weeks. Among other items, I came across a commentary by Mike Rossner and Ira Mellman, the two big guys at the Journal of Cell Biology. The commentary concerns the…
OA pillars The following are excerpts from the journal Nature regarding the Public Library of Science. These were located with a simple search for the phrase "Public Library of Science." For each item, I provide the source, and a selected bit of text. I have no selection criteria to report…