We've all heard about it: the supposed link between autism and the MMR vaccine. Celebrity crusaders, admittedly of noble intent, campaign against vaccines, and entreat parents to protect their children from the perceived dangers of vaccination. Such a link, if existent, would be quite newsworthy. But all too often the media can be swept up in the sensationalist opportunity, and fail to consider evidence to the contrary.
And while the news media may facilitate the spread of celebrity influence, some websites blatantly distort the truth entirely, catering to those whose minds teeter on the brink of decisiveness. Yet one thing is clear, that all of these disparate players in the autism debate (celebrities, news reporters, web publishers, and even parents) are at minimum two degrees of separation from the evidence.
The first degree, and most direct source of interpretation, is the scientist performing the study. Though bias and conlfict-of-interest may play some role, the general concensus of the scientific community, at least on the autism-MMR issue, is coherent. But just as white light passing through a prism separates into its constituent colors, the scientific data, once presented to the heterogenous populous, may be interpreted a myriad of ways.
And these different perspectives, some patently ridiculous, are all given due consideration. Because the color of the initial light source (the science) is obscured from view by a veil of closed access. Walled-off from the buzzing discussions, science exercises little influence over public opinion.
Just a few days ago, I read a fascinating little piece on a link between autism and vinyl flooring online in Scientific American. Eager to examine the full results, I sought after the journal NeuroToxicology, a decidedly closed access publisher.
It is exactly this sort of thing that allows unfounded scandals to initiate, and perpetuate. In other words, insularity in academia can yield insanity in public.
Nathan
Showing posts with label open access. Show all posts
Showing posts with label open access. Show all posts
Wednesday, April 1, 2009
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Why Open Acces? Why not?
It seems that the natural order of things tends toward openness. Nature was open; it was man that built walls and roofs. Water flowed freely; it was man that built dams and bottled it. Knowledge was open; it was man that closed it.
But entropy can be a good thing. Because it means that barriers, organization, and other impediments to free interaction do not impose their will. And two atoms must first make contact before they can react, and in so doing, create something new.
So too goes for science and ideas. Hypotheses from disparate fields may have great potential if brought together, but when not given free reign and open access, lie idly to waste. And right now, we have the hydrogen and oxygen separated into two different compartments. Break down that wall, though, and we get the knowledge that is water.
Nathan
But entropy can be a good thing. Because it means that barriers, organization, and other impediments to free interaction do not impose their will. And two atoms must first make contact before they can react, and in so doing, create something new.
So too goes for science and ideas. Hypotheses from disparate fields may have great potential if brought together, but when not given free reign and open access, lie idly to waste. And right now, we have the hydrogen and oxygen separated into two different compartments. Break down that wall, though, and we get the knowledge that is water.
Nathan
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Catch 44
In Joseph Heller's novel, the military introduces a requirement entitled Catch 22: the insane will be removed from flight duties if requested, but asking to be relieved from flight service proves the serviceman is, in fact, sane.
The Catch 22 is essentially whenever fundamentally flawed logic is applied in a surprisingly rational way. And unfortunately, one has been applied, with a modern twist, to scientific publishing -- Catch 22, Version 2.0, with multiplication, 44.
One argument against Open Access goes something like this: the scientists don't actually want OA, because if they did, they would make sure all of their research is published OA. And clearly, not all researchers ensure free access to their research, though the number that do is growing.
But here's the rub: this situation exists because of the Catch 44. New discoveries need past research to build upon (Newton's shoulders of giants), and scientists relying on OA are more likely to return the favor (publish their own research OA).
So in our current predicament, there often isn't enough OA research available in a targeted field of discovery for OA-dependent investigators to use. We end up with fewer OA-inclined authors and thus fewer OA-papers. Or at the very least, these authors, due to their lack of resources, publish less freqency.
This gives us a low signal-to-noise ratio (I call closed access research noise because its important message is hidden from the rest of us), so the noise prevails. And this ingenious trap de facto seems more likely to be enforced by law if the likes of John Conyers (D-MI) get their way.
Nathan
The Catch 22 is essentially whenever fundamentally flawed logic is applied in a surprisingly rational way. And unfortunately, one has been applied, with a modern twist, to scientific publishing -- Catch 22, Version 2.0, with multiplication, 44.
One argument against Open Access goes something like this: the scientists don't actually want OA, because if they did, they would make sure all of their research is published OA. And clearly, not all researchers ensure free access to their research, though the number that do is growing.
But here's the rub: this situation exists because of the Catch 44. New discoveries need past research to build upon (Newton's shoulders of giants), and scientists relying on OA are more likely to return the favor (publish their own research OA).
So in our current predicament, there often isn't enough OA research available in a targeted field of discovery for OA-dependent investigators to use. We end up with fewer OA-inclined authors and thus fewer OA-papers. Or at the very least, these authors, due to their lack of resources, publish less freqency.
This gives us a low signal-to-noise ratio (I call closed access research noise because its important message is hidden from the rest of us), so the noise prevails. And this ingenious trap de facto seems more likely to be enforced by law if the likes of John Conyers (D-MI) get their way.
Nathan
Monday, March 9, 2009
The grass is not Green on the other side
When the skies turn gray with impending storms and the hilltop fence looms gloomily over the expanse, many turn their thoughts inward and ponder the glory of what lies across the way. While this escapism may work for a little while, its empty promise soon reveals its hollow core when the true nature of the other side of the hill is revealed to be not as verdant as what was hoped. And the same holds true for Open Access, because although the antipodal decline may flaunt a grand diversity of flora, its face is pockmarked with the glaring signs of impracticality.
Green OA, in which papers are archived in freely accessible repositories, may seem a perfect compromise between Gold OA (OA publishing in which authors usually pay) and traditional closed access publishing. However, as the annals of American History have taught us (read Missouri and 3/5ths Compromises), when facing a profound question, a middle ground only manages to avoid decisiveness for so long. At some point, a decision must be made, and procrastinating only leads to increased strife (Bleeding Kansas, anyone?).
Compounding this issue, Green OA is markedly unsustainable. As papers are archived and freely accessible, traffic will be diverted from closed access journals to free repositories. In the basic functional definition of supply-demand economics, demand for closed access publishers will decline, as will their revenues. While as a proponent of OA, I wont shed a single tear at the downfall of a system I find exclusionary, however, such a collapse will cause problems. If Green OA is overemphasized, and Gold OA is not established, the peer review and editorial oversight required for the reliable communication of science would experience a vacuum of infrastructure. Free repositories such as PubMed or arXiv don't complete the critical functions; this burden is heaped upon publishers. Coordinating these things and publishing papers costs money, and these funds must either come from the author or reader end.
As of now, the middle ground is the most enticing option, though I personally find it myopic. If history has taught us anything, let it be not to repeat the mistakes of the past. And although the OA debate cannot hope to compare in magnitude with the profound questions of yesteryear, I feel the fundamental lessons remain highly relevant. With this healthy dose of retrospect, perhaps we can reach the pastures of promise not by trudging across dense foliage, but rather perambulate upon a golden path.
Nathan
Green OA, in which papers are archived in freely accessible repositories, may seem a perfect compromise between Gold OA (OA publishing in which authors usually pay) and traditional closed access publishing. However, as the annals of American History have taught us (read Missouri and 3/5ths Compromises), when facing a profound question, a middle ground only manages to avoid decisiveness for so long. At some point, a decision must be made, and procrastinating only leads to increased strife (Bleeding Kansas, anyone?).
Compounding this issue, Green OA is markedly unsustainable. As papers are archived and freely accessible, traffic will be diverted from closed access journals to free repositories. In the basic functional definition of supply-demand economics, demand for closed access publishers will decline, as will their revenues. While as a proponent of OA, I wont shed a single tear at the downfall of a system I find exclusionary, however, such a collapse will cause problems. If Green OA is overemphasized, and Gold OA is not established, the peer review and editorial oversight required for the reliable communication of science would experience a vacuum of infrastructure. Free repositories such as PubMed or arXiv don't complete the critical functions; this burden is heaped upon publishers. Coordinating these things and publishing papers costs money, and these funds must either come from the author or reader end.
As of now, the middle ground is the most enticing option, though I personally find it myopic. If history has taught us anything, let it be not to repeat the mistakes of the past. And although the OA debate cannot hope to compare in magnitude with the profound questions of yesteryear, I feel the fundamental lessons remain highly relevant. With this healthy dose of retrospect, perhaps we can reach the pastures of promise not by trudging across dense foliage, but rather perambulate upon a golden path.
Nathan
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
There's more to Open Access than money
Open Access is much more than free access to scientific literature. It's progress, in the most fundamental meaning of the term: the next, infinitesimal yet integral, step towards scientific nirvana. It's stripping away the ancient vestiges of a bygone scientific paradigm. It's a scientific revolution as defined by Kuhn, though it doesn't change how we do science; it changes how we view science. And it's the goal towards which we strive.
Martin Luther King, Jr. noted that "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." But history, just like a rolling ball, has inertia and will obey the Newtonian laws, follows its path until an outside force acts upon it. Now, the question arises as to the nature of this clearly potent mechanism. But the force that alters this trajectory is not of mystical or ephemeral construction. It is the power of action and conscience, words and deeds. Without these, history continues straight along on its merry way, unconcerned about the desires and hopes of its passengers.
Nathan
Martin Luther King, Jr. noted that "the arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice." But history, just like a rolling ball, has inertia and will obey the Newtonian laws, follows its path until an outside force acts upon it. Now, the question arises as to the nature of this clearly potent mechanism. But the force that alters this trajectory is not of mystical or ephemeral construction. It is the power of action and conscience, words and deeds. Without these, history continues straight along on its merry way, unconcerned about the desires and hopes of its passengers.
Nathan
Monday, March 2, 2009
Open them up: Reinforced doors have long hidden intellectual incest
There's a reason why incest is illegal in every single US state and the District of Columbia. It drives its evolutionary course straight towards disaster. Genetic diseases caused by incest are plentiful and deleterious. But most of all, incest represents the bygone age during which royalties attempted to keep the "pure blood" within a closed group. But this blood soon spoiled with the ravage of disease.
Though scientific research may not immediately call to mind sexual relations between family members, the fundamental principles do not differ. Bedchamber doors have been replaced with payment pages and royal secrecy with registration requirements. And similarly to the royalty of antiquity, assumptions of superiority are a powerful driving force behind the institution.
Public outrage or participant opposition alone are not able to bring about an end to the practice. Instead, a combination of these forces is required. Through cooperation and careful application of strength, we can fling wide these stubborn doors hiding the abominable practice of intellectual incest.
Nathan
Though scientific research may not immediately call to mind sexual relations between family members, the fundamental principles do not differ. Bedchamber doors have been replaced with payment pages and royal secrecy with registration requirements. And similarly to the royalty of antiquity, assumptions of superiority are a powerful driving force behind the institution.
Public outrage or participant opposition alone are not able to bring about an end to the practice. Instead, a combination of these forces is required. Through cooperation and careful application of strength, we can fling wide these stubborn doors hiding the abominable practice of intellectual incest.
Nathan
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Intellectual Property or Intellectual Propaganda?
Everywhere you look, everyone wants to stand up for something. People are Pro- life, choice, and pretty much any noun with a positive connotation. No one wants to be anti-anything, because those are the naysayers who are destroying our country, right?
But this entire concept of antithetical positives creates a false dichotomy that inaccurately describes the options. Who's going to say "Oh, I just despise life" or "There's nothing I hate more than choice"? Pretty much no one, in my opinion. And honestly, neither of those descriptors actually get to the fundamental issues of privacy, maternal health, and reproductive rights.
That's why, if you listen to the rhetoric, opponents of OA aren't opposing anything at all! They're just for intellectual property rights. But peel back the shiny label and the same malfunctioning product is there. And it's time we turn it right around and demand a full refund. Oppose closed access and contact your representatives about HR801!
Nathan
But this entire concept of antithetical positives creates a false dichotomy that inaccurately describes the options. Who's going to say "Oh, I just despise life" or "There's nothing I hate more than choice"? Pretty much no one, in my opinion. And honestly, neither of those descriptors actually get to the fundamental issues of privacy, maternal health, and reproductive rights.
That's why, if you listen to the rhetoric, opponents of OA aren't opposing anything at all! They're just for intellectual property rights. But peel back the shiny label and the same malfunctioning product is there. And it's time we turn it right around and demand a full refund. Oppose closed access and contact your representatives about HR801!
Nathan
Sunday, February 22, 2009
Knowledge is Water
From Watergate to Downing Street, governments around the world operate on a need-to-know basis in which information is power and ignorance is bliss. This, it would seem, is a necessity for healthy governance, especially when information that could jeopardize national security is at hand. But sometimes, the definition of who, exactly, "needs" to know can call into question the structural integrity of this notion's entire foundation.
The assumption that one is entitled to information while others are not based upon some ambiguous measure of importance is like dumbbell curls of the ego muscles. And, what's more, it perpetuates the status quo of what I call knowledge elitism: I am better than you because I know more than you. Instead of basing exclusivity on geographic location, social status, or family connections, this paradigm establishes a hierarchy of importance based on the sole factor of access to information. And it is a cancer in our society.
Whether this desire to be counted among the knowledge elite stems from some nagging inferiority complex induced by schoolyard bullying or something entirely different, it does not matter. The end result is a system which treats information as a luxury, one reserved only for those who can afford it. Given this entrenched philosophy, it should come as no surprise that water is being bottled and sold for a dollar when it was once freely available in superior quality and quantity from the tap. Water, like knowing, has become a private commodity with varying degrees of access based on how much you are willing to spend.
But this system stands contrary to the desires of nature. According to the natural order, no one can claim ownership of water any more than purview over the stars in the heavens or dominion over the fish in the seas. So too goes for knowledge: it is a common resource, to be shared by, and implemented for the benefit of, the community. The more we lose sight of this truth, the more dire the consequences, because the severe deleterious effects a dearth of water access has on a community's health are analogous to those a lack of open access has on the pace of research. Every stumbling block retards the growth of science, resulting in far reaching consequences that present themselves in the long term.
In other words, knowledge is water. It's good for you and everyone needs it. So let's stop pretending that it's some exclusive commodity for the well-connected or well-paid. Because everyone knows the faucet only runs when it's open.
Nathan
The assumption that one is entitled to information while others are not based upon some ambiguous measure of importance is like dumbbell curls of the ego muscles. And, what's more, it perpetuates the status quo of what I call knowledge elitism: I am better than you because I know more than you. Instead of basing exclusivity on geographic location, social status, or family connections, this paradigm establishes a hierarchy of importance based on the sole factor of access to information. And it is a cancer in our society.
Whether this desire to be counted among the knowledge elite stems from some nagging inferiority complex induced by schoolyard bullying or something entirely different, it does not matter. The end result is a system which treats information as a luxury, one reserved only for those who can afford it. Given this entrenched philosophy, it should come as no surprise that water is being bottled and sold for a dollar when it was once freely available in superior quality and quantity from the tap. Water, like knowing, has become a private commodity with varying degrees of access based on how much you are willing to spend.
But this system stands contrary to the desires of nature. According to the natural order, no one can claim ownership of water any more than purview over the stars in the heavens or dominion over the fish in the seas. So too goes for knowledge: it is a common resource, to be shared by, and implemented for the benefit of, the community. The more we lose sight of this truth, the more dire the consequences, because the severe deleterious effects a dearth of water access has on a community's health are analogous to those a lack of open access has on the pace of research. Every stumbling block retards the growth of science, resulting in far reaching consequences that present themselves in the long term.
In other words, knowledge is water. It's good for you and everyone needs it. So let's stop pretending that it's some exclusive commodity for the well-connected or well-paid. Because everyone knows the faucet only runs when it's open.
Nathan
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Why is HR801 referred to the Judiciary Committee, when there's a perfectly good one on Science and Technology?
The solution very well may lie in the legal nuance of the bill, but a simpler answer seems obvious to me. As many of you may remember from your High School civics class, most bills die in committee. Therefore, by directing the controversial HR801 to under his own auspices, John Conyers (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, can shepard the bill through with a higher chance of success.
In addition, it appears that the bill would have faced fierce competition in the House Committee on Science and Technology, given that its Chairman, Bart Gordon (D-TN), has stated: "Scientific progress occurs when we foster the open exchange of ideas and information." Sounds like a central tenet of Open Access, and seems like Representative Gordon would have little sympathy for HR801.
What we need to do is pull the plug on this bill before it builds momentum, and that means nipping it at its congressional bud: Committee. Here's a list of all the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If your representative is on this list, please make a concerted effort to contact them and make your opposition to HR801 heard.
Nathan
In addition, it appears that the bill would have faced fierce competition in the House Committee on Science and Technology, given that its Chairman, Bart Gordon (D-TN), has stated: "Scientific progress occurs when we foster the open exchange of ideas and information." Sounds like a central tenet of Open Access, and seems like Representative Gordon would have little sympathy for HR801.
What we need to do is pull the plug on this bill before it builds momentum, and that means nipping it at its congressional bud: Committee. Here's a list of all the members of the House Committee on the Judiciary. If your representative is on this list, please make a concerted effort to contact them and make your opposition to HR801 heard.
Nathan
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
Following the money on HR801
Two days ago, I issued an urgent call to action concerning HR801, re-introduced by Congressional Representative John Conyers (D-MI), which would essentially reverse the NIH Open Access policy. I have much respect for Representative Conyers, especially on his health care policies. Thus, I was greatly disturbed upon hearing of this development.
I wanted to know why Conyers would do such a thing, and began investigating the money trail on Conyers' campaign contributions (thanks Alex for the idea!). What I came upon sank my heart. According to Open Secrets, Conyers' third single largest campaign contributor in 2008 was the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), whose "Key Bills of the 111th Congress" include HR801. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Money talks, and big money talks that much louder.
The AIPLA, like the bill it hawks, has a deceptive name. It seems the association is more interested in limiting public access to research it funded than protecting "intellectual property". Perhaps the AIPLA should consider the fact that, in essence, the research is the "intellectual property" of the taxpayers whose money went into it. But of course this private organization has the interest of its members closest to its mission; I only had hoped that Conyers would do the same for his constituents. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Congressional job approval rating averages less than 30%.
But don't let this news dishearten you. Conyers can't pass the bill on his own, no matter how much money he has behind him. Contact your Representatives and appeal to the better angels of their nature. Stop HR801 now, and in 2010 we can elect responsible persons to represent us.
Nathan
I wanted to know why Conyers would do such a thing, and began investigating the money trail on Conyers' campaign contributions (thanks Alex for the idea!). What I came upon sank my heart. According to Open Secrets, Conyers' third single largest campaign contributor in 2008 was the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), whose "Key Bills of the 111th Congress" include HR801. Surprised? Shouldn't be. Money talks, and big money talks that much louder.
The AIPLA, like the bill it hawks, has a deceptive name. It seems the association is more interested in limiting public access to research it funded than protecting "intellectual property". Perhaps the AIPLA should consider the fact that, in essence, the research is the "intellectual property" of the taxpayers whose money went into it. But of course this private organization has the interest of its members closest to its mission; I only had hoped that Conyers would do the same for his constituents. Perhaps it is no wonder that the Congressional job approval rating averages less than 30%.
But don't let this news dishearten you. Conyers can't pass the bill on his own, no matter how much money he has behind him. Contact your Representatives and appeal to the better angels of their nature. Stop HR801 now, and in 2010 we can elect responsible persons to represent us.
Nathan
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Imaginet
I was listening to the great song Imagine by John Lennon and decided to modify the lyrics for Web 2.0 (if you need help getting the melody in your head, here's a nice music video):
Imagine there's no paper,
It's easy if you type.
We can talk among us
Online, using Skype.
Internet for all the people's
Status on Twitter...
Imagine there's no limits
On what research can do;
Nothing to stop and wait for,
And no payments too.
Imagine all the research
Open for all to see...
You may say that I'm a Digger,
And the internet has won.
I hope Open Access will succeed,
And the world will read PLoS ONE.
Imagine no limitations,
But only if we stand
Up against the greed
In an alliance quite grand.
Imagine all the people
Sharing the knowledge...
You may say that I'm a Digger,
And the internet has won.
I hope Open Access will succeed,
And the world will read PLoS ONE.
Imagine there's no paper,
It's easy if you type.
We can talk among us
Online, using Skype.
Internet for all the people's
Status on Twitter...
Imagine there's no limits
On what research can do;
Nothing to stop and wait for,
And no payments too.
Imagine all the research
Open for all to see...
You may say that I'm a Digger,
And the internet has won.
I hope Open Access will succeed,
And the world will read PLoS ONE.
Imagine no limitations,
But only if we stand
Up against the greed
In an alliance quite grand.
Imagine all the people
Sharing the knowledge...
You may say that I'm a Digger,
And the internet has won.
I hope Open Access will succeed,
And the world will read PLoS ONE.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Stand for Open Access, Oppose HR801
The most painful defeat is an overturned victory. And this very well may happen if supporters of OA do not respond. Congressional Representative John Conyers (D-MI) has re-introduced a bill (HR801) that essentially would negate the NIH policy concerning depositing research in OA repositories.
The bill's name in no way reflects its purpose: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. A more apt title would go something similar to Fallacious Companies in Research Win Again, in order to retain its possible acronym. Jennifer McLennan, Director of Communications over at SPARC, issued a letter in which she outlines the five key characteristics of the bill, quoted below:
In the letter, McLennan goes on to encourage all those involved in and impacted by the OA movement to take action and contact their representatives in order to rally opposition to this bill. A draft letter text is available. I encourage all to participate and take a stand to defend OA and public access to scientific research.
Nathan
The bill's name in no way reflects its purpose: Fair Copyright in Research Works Act. A more apt title would go something similar to Fallacious Companies in Research Win Again, in order to retain its possible acronym. Jennifer McLennan, Director of Communications over at SPARC, issued a letter in which she outlines the five key characteristics of the bill, quoted below:
H.R. 801 is designed to amend current copyright law and create a new category of copyrighted works (Section 201, Title 17). In effect, it would:
1. Prohibit all U.S. federal agencies from conditioning funding agreements to require that works resulting from federal support be made publicly available if those works are either: a) funded in part by sources other than a U.S. agency, or b) the result of "meaningful added value" to the work from an entity that is not party to the agreement.
2. Prohibit U.S. agencies from obtaining a license to publicly distribute, perform, or display such work by, for example, placing it on the Internet.
3. Stifle access to a broad range of federally funded works, overturning the crucially important NIH Public Access Policy and preventing other agencies from implementing similar policies.
4. Because it is so broadly framed, the proposed bill would require an overhaul of the well-established procurement rules in effect for all federal agencies, and could disrupt day-to-day procurement practices across the federal government.
5. Repeal the longstanding "federal purpose" doctrine, under which all federal agencies that fund the creation of a copyrighted work reserve the "royalty-free, nonexclusive right to reproduce, publish, or otherwise use the work" for any federal purpose. This will severely limit the ability of U.S. federal agencies to use works that they have funded to support and fulfill agency missions and to communicate with and educate the public.
In the letter, McLennan goes on to encourage all those involved in and impacted by the OA movement to take action and contact their representatives in order to rally opposition to this bill. A draft letter text is available. I encourage all to participate and take a stand to defend OA and public access to scientific research.
Nathan
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Love in the Time of Closed Access
Romance and courtship, love and loss, life and death. Though these are not characteristics of the OA movement, their presence is ubiquitous in Gabriel Garcia Marquez's classic novel, and no less pervasive globally. And as Valentine's day approaches, I thought I could discuss science's love affair with OA (or perhaps something more?) by considering a few key ways to ensure the establishment of a sound and flourishing relationship.
Lay a strong foundation. On this point, we've succeeded rather well. Two key publishers including Public Library of Science and BioMed Central have emblazoned a suitable path to the golden destination of OA. But already cracks are visible. Questions concerning the peer review process, academic validity, and publishing guidelines have been raised concerning those publishers that do not charge for OA publication. These imperfections must be addressed, and constant inspection ensured.
It takes two to tango. It's all about cooperation, and that often means compromise. The world isn't going to change in a day, but through strategic partnerships among and between academia, publishers, and government, progress can, and has, been made. Without this elemental teamwork, no relationship (whether it be personal or philosophical), can be maintained.
Keep the flame alive. The period of honeymoon, infatuation, novelty, call it whatever you will, the meaning changes none at all: something that is new is exciting, and as that newness fades, the excitement often follows suit. And in the end, complacency is much more comfortable than action. Though difficult, avoiding this rut is exactly what must be done in order to guarantee the healthy longevity of the OA movement.
Nathan
Nathan
Sunday, February 1, 2009
PLoS ONE Introduces Collections
On January 30th, PLoS ONE tried something new. While the pioneering OA journal had always categorized all of its research articles into subject areas (physics, mathematics, biochemistry, etc.) and publication date (PLoS ONE publishes on a daily schedule now in order to facilitate the high volume of research it processes), a new option in the Browse Articles menu was introduced a few days ago.
Collections they are called, and fascinating they are certainly. The idea is similar to the concept-driven magazine issue, with a coherent focus on the theme or topic of the week/month. The only difference being that the articles represent novel research as opposed to journalistic reporting. As PLoS ONE is a formidably large journal, collections will help simplify the organization of research into accessible units.
Not all of the PLoS ONE articles will be published into collections. Instead, according to its website PLoS ONE will "from time to time" develop a collection in order to "highlight specific topics." Though not stated explicitly, it may be a reasonable guess to think that new collections may be a monthly addition, similar to the publishing schedule of its more prestigious sister journals, PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology.
The first collection is entitled Stress-Induced Depression and Comorbidities: From Bench to Bedside and tackles a research field of growing interest to many neuroscientists. This body of work comprises two Overviews and eleven Research Articles, the collective results produced from several international research institutes. I encourage all of you to check it out.
Nathan
Collections they are called, and fascinating they are certainly. The idea is similar to the concept-driven magazine issue, with a coherent focus on the theme or topic of the week/month. The only difference being that the articles represent novel research as opposed to journalistic reporting. As PLoS ONE is a formidably large journal, collections will help simplify the organization of research into accessible units.
Not all of the PLoS ONE articles will be published into collections. Instead, according to its website PLoS ONE will "from time to time" develop a collection in order to "highlight specific topics." Though not stated explicitly, it may be a reasonable guess to think that new collections may be a monthly addition, similar to the publishing schedule of its more prestigious sister journals, PLoS Medicine and PLoS Biology.
The first collection is entitled Stress-Induced Depression and Comorbidities: From Bench to Bedside and tackles a research field of growing interest to many neuroscientists. This body of work comprises two Overviews and eleven Research Articles, the collective results produced from several international research institutes. I encourage all of you to check it out.
Nathan
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Science of the Common Man
Closed access publishing is an artifact of the bygone era during which it was largely believed that only a few, great men were the pioneers of knowledge, and the masses of the "common man" were mere spectators along the river of science. In the past, every effort was made to limit the demographic diversity of university and professional populations. Notions of racial and gender superiority encouraged institutionalized discrimination. Women were only able to become full members of the University of Oxford in 1947. US law allowed public schools to remain segregated until the US Supreme Court case of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954.
Now, I am by no means comparing closed access publishing with racial or gender discrimination. I am noting, however, that the basic result (that of limiting participation within a certain arena of academic pursuit) remains the same. In fact, closed access publishing is blind to the color, creed, and nationality of those whose quest for knowledge it inhibits. And although the matriculation barriers of the past took the form of laws, monetary and reproduction restraints are little different in my mind.
One of the beauties of scientific publishing is that there is no educational, socioeconomic, or gender prerequisite for contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. All that is required is a novel idea. On the surface, at least. Here, the distinction arises between what is de jure (of set requirements, i.e. law, standards, directives, etc.) and what is de facto (of fact).
On one point, all can agree: there are few to no de jure limitations to contributing to science. While these were present in the past (with specific references in the first paragraph), they have all but died out in today's age. Unfortunately, de facto barriers, some of which inescapable, remain. The average American (lets call him Alvin) does not have access to a well-equipped lab, not by the virtue of any federal, state, or local law decreeing it (as would be in the case of de jure) but rather by the virtue of Alvin's not being employed (and not having the qualifications necessary to be employed) by a university or company with said facilities. This widely acknowledged situation is quite acceptable by all standards. However, the fact that Alvin cannot read the latest research on dark matter because it was published in a closed access journal and not self-archived in a free repository IS a problem.
Now Alvin may have been able to contribute, at least in some small way, to the understanding of dark matter. But instead he was frustrated, and in general turned off, by the constant presence of pages demanding payments he cannot afford with his sub-median salary, and thus he abandons his scientific pursuit.
While I am sure many of you will scoff at this notion that closed access snowballs into lost contribution to science. But even those who doubt that de facto problems are problems, or even that people like Alvin can offer any valuable insight, I have to ask: is continuing along with the status quo worth the risk?
It is clear that barriers in science remain from those older times, the only difference being that they have successfully hidden themselves within the paradigm of social acceptability. They have shed their ostentatious de jure robes and have chosen instead the de facto ghillie suit. Their purpose remains unchanged.
Nathan
Now, I am by no means comparing closed access publishing with racial or gender discrimination. I am noting, however, that the basic result (that of limiting participation within a certain arena of academic pursuit) remains the same. In fact, closed access publishing is blind to the color, creed, and nationality of those whose quest for knowledge it inhibits. And although the matriculation barriers of the past took the form of laws, monetary and reproduction restraints are little different in my mind.
One of the beauties of scientific publishing is that there is no educational, socioeconomic, or gender prerequisite for contributing to the body of scientific knowledge. All that is required is a novel idea. On the surface, at least. Here, the distinction arises between what is de jure (of set requirements, i.e. law, standards, directives, etc.) and what is de facto (of fact).
On one point, all can agree: there are few to no de jure limitations to contributing to science. While these were present in the past (with specific references in the first paragraph), they have all but died out in today's age. Unfortunately, de facto barriers, some of which inescapable, remain. The average American (lets call him Alvin) does not have access to a well-equipped lab, not by the virtue of any federal, state, or local law decreeing it (as would be in the case of de jure) but rather by the virtue of Alvin's not being employed (and not having the qualifications necessary to be employed) by a university or company with said facilities. This widely acknowledged situation is quite acceptable by all standards. However, the fact that Alvin cannot read the latest research on dark matter because it was published in a closed access journal and not self-archived in a free repository IS a problem.
Now Alvin may have been able to contribute, at least in some small way, to the understanding of dark matter. But instead he was frustrated, and in general turned off, by the constant presence of pages demanding payments he cannot afford with his sub-median salary, and thus he abandons his scientific pursuit.
While I am sure many of you will scoff at this notion that closed access snowballs into lost contribution to science. But even those who doubt that de facto problems are problems, or even that people like Alvin can offer any valuable insight, I have to ask: is continuing along with the status quo worth the risk?
It is clear that barriers in science remain from those older times, the only difference being that they have successfully hidden themselves within the paradigm of social acceptability. They have shed their ostentatious de jure robes and have chosen instead the de facto ghillie suit. Their purpose remains unchanged.
Nathan
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
