New Adventures in Science Publishing

Nearly a year ago, a group of high-profile scientists came together in hopes of sparking widespread reform throughout the science publishing industry.1 Although publishers certainly took notice, these scientists' efforts to establish a so-called Public Library of Science (PLOS) have fallen well short of initial objectives. PLOS founders have now decided to maintain their principles but change their strategy by launching a freely accessible, author fee-funded, peer reviewed online journal. In an open letter first circulated nearly a year ago, founding members of the PLOS demanded that publishers make all content freely available six months after initial publication without restrictions. The idea was to not only eliminate often-prohibitive subscription fees, but to make all published scientific literature fully searchable via large repositories. Publishers who didn't comply by this past September faced a potential boycott from the tens of thousands of scientists from all over the world who signed on to the initiative (Signatures on the PLOS Web site currently total more than 28,000). Although science publishers certainly took notice, leading to varying degrees of cooperation, few journals have explicitly complied with PLOS demands. Several publishers called the PLOS effort too aggressive, financially unrealistic, and an avenue toward the unwarranted and unwelcome loss of control of their own operations. "The Public Library of Science has actually been a big success despite the fact that they haven't achieved their goals," says Nicholas Cozzarelli, editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and PubMed Central advisory committee member. The PLOS, says Cozzarelli, helped push some journals to provide free content much more readily than they would have otherwise. He notes that due in large part to PLOS pressure, several prominent journals agreed to make published research freely available via PubMed Central, a National Library of Medicine (NLM)-sponsored public archive. A compromise offered by PubMed Central this past summer encouraged several more journals to come on board: In a provision that is not in agreement with PLOS demands, PubMed Central organizers allowed the archive's members to limit free full-text display of articles to their own respective websites as long as the articles are archived and searchable at the PubMed Central site. (See www.publiclibraryofscience.org for full list of journal policies). Founding PLOS member Michael B. Eisen of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and the University of California, Berkeley, contends that the initiative has not only raised the consciousness of the scientific community, but also has demonstrated the high degree of distaste among scientists for the current system of science publishing. Eisen admits, however, that he's disappointed that more journals, especially society journals, did not take more "constructive steps" by the September deadline. In a statement released in September, the PLOS encouraged those who had pledged their support to review for, publish in, and subscribe to journals based on those journals' degree of compliance with the PLOS. Eisen says that he has heard reports of some scientists refusing to review for or submit to noncompliant journals such as Cell. "Whether it will have a sufficient effect to convince publishers to change their mind," he comments, "in all honesty, I'm somewhat skeptical." The PLOS focus has now shifted away from lobbying for change within existing journals, and toward the creation of a new journal that demonstrates to the scientific community, says Eisen, that such a venture can be "sustainable and be a viable enterprise without charging subscriptions or other fees for accessing the literature." The journal, due to start early next year, will charge authors who make submissions $250-$500 up front for the PLOS to publish their work; it will subsidize authors who cannot afford the fees. The PLOS model is nearly identical to that of a UK-based publisher, BioMed Central, which publishes several biology and medicine journals online and makes all content freely available. By early next year, BioMed Central plans to start charging $400-$500 in up-front author fees per research article submitted. One significant difference between the BioMed Central and PLOS plans: BioMed Central will take 50 percent of any share of the commercial potential (such as large reprint requests from pharmaceutical companies), with the other 50 percent going to the author. The PLOS will not stake such a claim. Also, unlike the PLOS, BioMed Central actually hopes to eventually turn a profit. The BioMed Central strategy as explained by publisher Jan Velterop is not unlike the one successfully employed by large department stores such as Wal-Mart: Higher volume compensates for lower profit margins. Although Cozzarelli likes the PLOS journal concept and has volunteered to be an editor, he suggests that such a model will likely lose money for a long time. "All journals lose money hand over fist when they start out," says Cozzarelli. "But these guys are going to lose it faster." PLOS organizers are actively seeking grants from several foundations to fund the effort along with up-front fees. Eisen contends that the response has been positive thus far, and that once established with sufficient start-up funds secured, the journal will be able cover costs. Nevertheless, it may take some time before the journal attains widespread credibility. "The only way that this is going to succeed," says National Center for Biotechnology Information director David Lipman, "is if person to person, scientist to scientist, people convince each other that this approach is what's going to work best. More scientists need to decide more actively what's going to work for them." Eugene Russo (erusso@the-scientist.com) is a contributing editor for The Scientist. 1. E. Russo, "A science publishing revolution," The Scientist, 15[8]:1, April 16, 2001.

New Adventures in Science Publishing

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of