Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1.  

   Public Library of Science

   

   Bob Bechtel, Jun 25th, 2002 @ 4:21am

   
   

   Rather than write a brief journal article about the current revolution in scientific publication, I'll just comment that the PLOS folks don't seem to have done much homework. They conflate the issues of access (ability to get ahold of articles) and comprehension (having article content "in common language"). Further, they are seemingly unaware that publishing scientists themselves are forcing low- or no-cost availability of electronic journal articles. For all its disadvantages, dead tree publication does have an extensively demonstrated history of success as an archival medium. Like it or not, there are costs associated with hardcopy publication, and those costs must be paid somehow. With respect to the comprehension issue, I guess they've not heard of Scientific American and its cousins (or perhaps the language there is not sufficiently "common").

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2.  

   Re: Public Library of Science

   

   mhh5, Jun 25th, 2002 @ 2:13pm

   
   

   I won't mock the PLOS people b/c I think their hearts are in the right place. I think one of their points is that publishers are claiming rights to content that should be open since it's funded by taxpayers. Barring the whole dead-tree/commonlanguage arguments, I think they should be able to reprint scientific data as much as they want.
   
   And I'd like to know how you're getting access to low- or no-cost copies of Science/Nature/etc...?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment