Will Harper, Publisher for the People, East Bay Express, September 29, 2004. A long, detailed, informal walk through the origins of PLoS and the nature of OA journal publishing. Excerpt: "For [Mike] Eisen and fellow critics of Big Publishing, the access issue cut to the heart of what science should be versus what it has become. The argument goes like this: The goal of research is to improve our knowledge. It's a cumulative process in which discovery begets discovery as scientists build on the work of their predecessors. But to unravel the mysteries of life and the cosmos, researchers need access to all available information, and that means journals, the main medium by which scientists communicate. By limiting public access now that electronic distribution is available, the journal industry is effectively working against the larger goals of science....It's still too early to tell whether PLoS has a sustainable business model. Critics say the real test for the young publisher will come after its $9 million grant runs out. 'PLoS is highly subsidized,' [Marc] Brodsky says. 'They are not making it on their $1,500-an-article charge yet.'...Ever the salesman, Eisen doesn't let the criticism get him down. He's thrilled, in fact: PLoS Biology has been more successful than he ever expected. And next month the publisher will release its second title, PLoS Medicine.
Posted by
Peter Suber at 9/29/2004 03:16:00 PM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
