Oh dear, this is depressing to watch. The Problem Last year (2011-12-01), Peter Murray Rust of Cambridge University published an article in BMC’s Journal of Cheminformatics — which, like all BMC journals, is owned by Springer.
I just sent this letter to Matthew Cockerill, the co-founder of the open-access publisher BioMed Central, which was acquired by Springer a few years ago. It arose from a mistake on Springer’s part that was discussed on Twitter initially. As I wrote this I didn’t particularly intend it to be an open letter.
An article in Times Higher Education tells of a new report, The Potential Effect of Making Journals Free After a Six Month Embargo , prepared by Linda Bennett of Gold Leaf for the Association of Learned, Professional and Society Publishers [ALPSP] and our old friends The Publishers Association. And this report contains very good news.
1. Publishing economics 101 Although publishing journal articles is now much less costly than it used to be (thanks to machine-readable submissions, paperless electronic distribution, etc.) it still costs some money to get a research paper from manuscript to its published form. So publishers — unless supported by grants, by government agencies or similar — need a revenue stream.
The annual meeting of the Society for Scholarly Publishing is happening right now — May 30th till June 1, in Arlington, Virginia.
Scopus bills itself as “the largest abstract and citation database of research literature and quality web sources covering nearly 18,000 titles from more than 5,000 publishers.” Sounds useful. But it’s useless. Literally.
A brief notice: A while back we set up a page of “open access bio and palaeo” links on this site — links to open-access journals, individual researchers’ pages that contain PDFs, etc. Recently, Matt and I realised that neither one of us had the time or inclination to keep this up to date — fixing broken links, finding new sites, etc.
Today’s Guardian has a piece by Graham Taylor, director of academic, educational and professional publishing at the Publishers Association, entitled Attacking publishers will not make open access any more sustainable . It’s such a crock that I felt compelled to respond point-by-point in the comments.
My mind was blown yesterday by a tweet from Stuart Shieber: [Screenshot, for when case Twitter decides the original tweet is too old to be worth keeping around any more.] At first I didn’t believe it. But I found the relevant article (Reovirus-Mediated Cytotoxicity and Enhancement of Innate Immune Responses Against Acute Myeloid Leukemia) and went through the Permissions process for myself.
{.alignright .size-medium .wp-image-6270 loading=“lazy” attachment-id=“6270” permalink=“http://svpow.com/2012/05/22/open-access-gathers-pace-and-you-can-make-a-difference/barack-obama/” orig-file=“https://svpow.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/barack-obama-007.jpg” orig-size=“460,276” comments-opened=“1” image-meta=“{"aperture":"0","credit":"Photograph: Jewel
Good news! If you want to read research that was funded by the U.S. National Instututes of Health (NIH), you can. Their public access policy means that papers published on their dime become universally accessible in PubMed Central.