DOCSLIB.ORG

PLOS and the Open-Access Movement a Transformation in Scientific Communication Dr Jocalyn Clark Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine Public Library of Science

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
PLOS and the Open-Access Movement a Transformation in Scientific Communication Dr Jocalyn Clark Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine Public Library of Science PLOS and the Open-Access Movement A Transformation in Scientific Communication Dr Jocalyn Clark Senior Editor, PLOS Medicine Public Library of Science Canadian Global Health Conference October 2012 What Is PLOS (Public Library of Science)? • A non-profit organization with a mission to transform research communication • A scientific publisher of 7 open access peer-reviewed journals • An innovator and developer of new technologies for research communication • An advocate of open access and adapting research communication to the web • Based in San Francisco and Cambridge + Toronto office 2 PLOS Biology October, 2003 PLOS Medicine October, 2004 PLOS Community Journals June-September, 2005 & October, 2007 (NTDs) PLOS ONE December, 2006 Public Library of Science • 2000: founded as a non-profit organization of scientists and physicians committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a freely available public resource • 2003: launched a non-profit scientific and medical publishing venture that publishes high-quality, high-profile journals What is open access? • Free, immediate online access • Deposition in a digital public archive • Unrestricted reuse • Author retains the copyright (not the publisher) • Users licensed to download, print, copy, redistribute with attribution (Creative Commons attribution license) 5 PLOS the Open Access advocate By "open access” we mean: –Immediate and unrestricted access to any reader –Available for any use with no restrictions –Only requiring that the authors to be attributed Beware imitations Free Open access ≠ access 6 The problem • Biomedical research results—the basis of medical knowledge—are privately owned and sold only to those who can afford it • Publishers make huge profits by restricting access • Shouldn’t medical research results be considered a global public good? • Most is funded by the public • Access to this knowledge is a global public health problem 7 The problem • You write the research paper • You give your work to publishers, you hand over copyright to them, they then sell it to wealthy readers • A high profile drug trial – Can earn a journal $1m in reprint sales • The work is subject to extremely tight copyright restrictions 8 Scientific publishing is big business • Worth $19 billion/year • Massachusetts Medical Society: reported $US90 million in total revenue for 2009 • STM publishing: Fastest growing sub-sector of the media industry for the past 15 years • Just 3 companies (Elsevier, Springer, Wiley) own majority of the biomedical research articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science • Aggressive lobbying for tighter copyright restrictions 9 300 250 200 150 The journals crisis 100 Percent change Percent 50 0 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 -50 Year Source: Association of Research Libraries Journal prices CPI/inflation Journals purchased Who gets to see research results? • Results of billions of dollars of research funding (NIH: $30bn in 2011) may be seen by only a small fraction of the intended audience, because research is published in journals that few individuals or institutions can afford to subscribe to • Annual subscription to Brain Research costs $24,038.40 11 12 What is open access? 13 The solution • Make all research results freely available online • The internet changes everything: Cheap, Fast, Global, Search and retrieval “It is now possible to share the results of medical research with anyone, anywhere, who could benefit from it. How could we not do it?” Harold Varmus, Nobel Laureate, PLOS Co-founder The Wellcome Trust’s position • The publishing of scientific research does not operate in the interests of scientists and the public, but is instead dominated by a commercial market intent on improving its market position How are we doing? Rise of open access Governments/institutions adopt OA policies • European Commission, Research Councils UK, World Bank, Wellcome, NIH, Medical Research Council, UNESCO, Howard Hughes Medical, MacArthur Foundation, CERN, etc. Universities adopt OA policies • Harvard, BYU, Columbia, Duke, MIT, UCSF, University of Kansas, Princeton, Stanford, Emory, Arizona State, Boston U, Caltech, Oregon State, U Penn, Purdue, Wake Forest, etc. 18 Rise of Open Access The Public Library of Science 20 PLoS ONE Published Articles (per quarter, since launch) 2010: 6,700 articles. Largest journal in the World 2007: 1,200 articles. > 99.7% of all journals in the World 2011: 14,000 articles. ~1.5% of ALL Scientific Literature Disruption of the Subscription Fee Model • PLOS has a sustainable business model in which our expenses — including those of peer review, journal production, and online hosting and archiving — are recovered by charging a publication fee to the authors or research sponsors for each article they publish. 22 Publication Fees • Subscription fees make sense with print • But online, cost of 2 readers = cost of 2000 readers, so why charge all 2000 readers? • Recover this cost up front • Publisher is a service provider (like a midwife) Subscription journals Researcher € Gov Publisher Funders € € € € Institutions Industry Pay-per-view Library Subscription Reader Open access journals Researcher Gov Funders € Publishing € is the final Institutions Industry step in a Publisher research project Public Digital Library Reader Catalysts for change Publishers • New publishers – BioMed Central – Hindawi – Public Library of Science • Existing publishers – PNAS, Oxford University Press, Company of Biologists, Springer, Blackwell, Royal Society, Wiley, Taylor and Francis, Cambridge University Press, Elsevier, BMJ Publishing Group Why should you pay to read them? OA Versus Subscription Journal Citations . OA journals overall have same impact as subscription . OA journals get more citations in some categories that subscription journals. APC-funded OA journals founded in the last 10 years are on average cited more than other OA journals. Funding mechanism no correlation with quality . OA journals approaching same scientific impact and quality as subscription journals Source: study by Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon comparing 2-year impact factors of OA and subscription journals. http://www.ukdistribute.com/links/1342176501903-Open%20access%20versus%20subscription%20journals_a%20comparison%20of%20scientific%20impact.pdf 28 How PLOS Measures Impact At the ARTICLE LEVEL, we track: • Citations (Scopus, PubMed Central, CrossRef) • Web usage (views, downloads) • Expert Ratings • Social bookmarking (CiteULike, Connotea, Mendeley) • Community rating (comments, ratings, notes) • Media/blog coverage (New York Times, Huffington Post) • Commenting activity • Twitter and more… • Collectively, we call these Article-Level Metrics (ALMs) • ALMs are available for every article PLOS publishes 29 ALMs Measure How Articles Are Used 30 What more can we do? • PLOS Article Level Metrics (ALM) project – Martin Fenner (technical lead) – Medical Doctor and cancer researcher at Hannover Medical School 34 35 36 Tracking Attention • Article-level Metrics • Sub-article metrics • Beyond the Article • Different needs – Author – Researcher – Funder – Educator Caution about metrics: Numbers don’t tell the whole story 38 “The Dirty War Index (DWI) method has been adapted for use in NATO military environments to monitor civilian, woman and child casualties. This version of the DWI is called a „Civilian Battle Damage Assessment Ratio‟ (CBDAR). Since October 2009, the CBDAR methodology has been used by NATO forces in Southern Afghanistan in order to reduce the possibility of injuring Afghan civilians. The methodology has identified a number of military activities that historically lead to civilian mortality that has led to NATO changing procedures.” Leading the transformation – the future • Reducing time from submission to publication • Making active and living papers the norm through innovation in presentation technology • Providing a personalized view of the literature • Achieving critical mass of fully open access literature within five years • Building a truly web-native research communication system 40.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Washington University St. Louis: Open Scholarship Washington University Journal of Law & Policy Volume 47 Intellectual Property: From Biodiversity to Technical Standards 2015 The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller Missouri Botanical Garden Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy Part of the Ecology and Evolutionary Biology Commons, Environmental Law Commons, and the Plant Sciences Commons Recommended Citation James S. Miller, The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity, 47 WASH. U. J. L. & POL’Y 051 (2015), https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_journal_law_policy/vol47/iss1/10 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Journal of Law & Policy by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Realized Benefits from Bioprospecting in the Wake of the Convention on Biological Diversity James S. Miller MISSOURI BOTANICAL GARDEN In the mid-1980s, the convergence of several technological advances led to a serious resurgence of interest in surveying plant species for drug development. The emergence of methods to miniaturize in-vitro bioassays (a test used to quantify the biological effect of a chemical compound or extract against a specific disease target) run the bioassays with robotic equipment, and isolate and identify active compounds with a speed and precision never before possible.
    [Show full text]
  • A Catalogue of Reporting Guidelines for Health Research REVIEW
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02234.x REVIEW A catalogue of reporting guidelines for health research I. Simera*, D. Moher†, J. Hoey‡, K. F. Schulz§ and D. G. Altman* *University of Oxford, Oxford, UK, †Ottawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, ‡University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, §UNC School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC, USA ABSTRACT Growing evidence demonstrates widespread deficiencies in the reporting of health research studies. The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative that aims to enhance the reliability and value of the published health research literature. EQUATOR provides resources, education and training to facilitate good research reporting and assists in the development, dissemination and implementation of robust reporting guidelines. This paper presents a collection of tools and guidelines available on the EQUATOR website (http://www.equator- network.org) that have been developed to increase the accuracy and transparency of health research reporting. Keywords EQUATOR Network, reporting guidelines, research reporting. Eur J Clin Invest 2010; 40 (1): 35–53 Many scientific articles are written merely to get something reporting of harms [7]; presenting data and graphs in confusing published, neglecting the clinician who would like the medical and misleading ways [8]; and omissions from or misinterpreta- literature to guide their practice [1]. tion of results in abstracts [9]. These deficiencies seriously distort scientific reality [10] and Introduction prevent clinicians from applying effective interventions in patients’ care [5]. Boxes 1 and 2 show just two of the numerous The main purpose of investing money into health research is to examples of problems identified in the research literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Progress Update July 2011
    PUBLIC LIBRARY of SCIENCE PUBLIC LIBRARY of SCIENCE www.plos.org 3URJUHVV8SGDWH 2010 Progress Update July 2011 www.plos.org Welcome to the 2010 PLoS Progress Update, aimed at keeping our authors, reviewers, editors, and supporters fully apprised of developments at PLoS over our most recent Highlights year. You can sign up to read future updates here. If you would like 1. Message from a fuller historical picture of how far we’ve come, you can read the the Founders 2009 Progress Update and the first full Progress Report. 2. Publishing Initiatives 3. Influential 1. Message from the Founders Research 4. A Growing It’s been another exciting year for PLoS, focused on establishing more open, Organization efficient, and effective ways to accelerate progress in science and medicine 5. The Evolving and leading a transformation in research communication. Open Access Landscape PLoS reached a truly significant milestone in 2010 when, seven years 6. The First PLoS after entering the publishing business, our annual operating revenues Forum exceeded expenses for the first time. Although we are delighted that PLoS and others have now shown that Open Access (OA) is a viable and 7. Customer Service sustainable business model, we have a long way to go before universal 8. Financial Summary access is achieved for all. 9. 2011 and Beyond The significant progress that we’ve made toward this goal could not have 10. Major Support been achieved without the leadership of our co-founder Harold Varmus, in 2010 who announced during the year that he was stepping aside as Chairman 11.
    [Show full text]
  • When Is Open Access Not Open Access?
    Editorial When Is Open Access Not Open Access? Catriona J. MacCallum ince 2003, when PLoS Biology Box 1. The Bethesda Statement on Open-Access Publishing was launched, there has been This is taken from http:⁄⁄www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/bethesda.htm. a spectacular growth in “open- S 1 access” journals. The Directory of An Open Access Publication is one that meets the following two conditions: Open Access Journals (http:⁄⁄www. 1. The author(s) and copyright holder(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable, doaj.org/), hosted by Lund University worldwide, perpetual right of access to, and a license to copy, use, distribute, transmit Libraries, lists 2,816 open-access and display the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, in any digital journals as this article goes to press medium for any responsible purpose, subject to proper attribution of authorship2, as (and probably more by the time you well as the right to make small numbers of printed copies for their personal use. read this). Authors also have various 2. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials, including a copy of “open-access” options within existing the permission as stated above, in a suitable standard electronic format is deposited subscription journals offered by immediately upon initial publication in at least one online repository that is supported traditional publishers (e.g., Blackwell, by an academic institution, scholarly society, government agency, or other well- Springer, Oxford University Press, and established organization that seeks to enable open access, unrestricted distribution, many others). In return for a fee to interoperability, and long-term archiving (for the biomedical sciences, PubMed Central the publisher, an author’s individual is such a repository).
    [Show full text]
  • From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2019 From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication Rob Johnson Research Consulting Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons, Scholarly Communication Commons, and the Scholarly Publishing Commons Johnson, Rob, "From Coalition to Commons: Plan S and the Future of Scholarly Communication" (2019). Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc.. 157. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/scholcom/157 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Libraries at University of Nebraska-Lincoln at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Copyright, Fair Use, Scholarly Communication, etc. by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Insights – 32, 2019 Plan S and the future of scholarly communication | Rob Johnson From coalition to commons: Plan S and the future of scholarly communication The announcement of Plan S in September 2018 triggered a wide-ranging debate over how best to accelerate the shift to open access. The Plan’s ten principles represent a call for the creation of an intellectual commons, to be brought into being through collective action by funders and managed through regulated market mechanisms. As it gathers both momentum and critics, the coalition must grapple with questions of equity, efficiency and sustainability. The work of Elinor Ostrom has shown that successful management of the commons frequently relies on polycentricity and adaptive governance. The Plan S principles must therefore function as an overarching framework within which local actors retain some autonomy, and should remain open to amendment as the scholarly communication landscape evolves.
    [Show full text]
  • A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly
    Southern Illinois University Carbondale OpenSIUC Honors Theses University Honors Program 5-2002 The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly Follow this and additional works at: http://opensiuc.lib.siu.edu/uhp_theses Recommended Citation Daly, Chris, "The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill" (2002). Honors Theses. Paper 131. This Dissertation/Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the University Honors Program at OpenSIUC. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses by an authorized administrator of OpenSIUC. For more information, please contact [email protected]. r The Boundaries of Liberalism in a Global Era: A Critique of John Stuart Mill Chris Daly May 8, 2002 r ABSTRACT The following study exanunes three works of John Stuart Mill, On Liberty, Utilitarianism, and Three Essays on Religion, and their subsequent effects on liberalism. Comparing the notion on individual freedom espoused in On Liberty to the notion of the social welfare in Utilitarianism, this analysis posits that it is impossible for a political philosophy to have two ultimate ends. Thus, Mill's liberalism is inherently flawed. As this philosophy was the foundation of Mill's progressive vision for humanity that he discusses in his Three Essays on Religion, this vision becomes paradoxical as well. Contending that the neo-liberalist global economic order is the contemporary parallel for Mill's religion of humanity, this work further demonstrates how these philosophical flaws have spread to infect the core of globalization in the 21 st century as well as their implications for future international relations.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access Publishing
    Open Access The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Suber, Peter. 2012. Open access. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. [Updates and Supplements: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/hoap/ Open_Access_(the_book)] Published Version http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/open-access Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:10752204 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA OPEN ACCESS The MIT Press Essential Knowledge Series Information and the Modern Corporation, James Cortada Intellectual Property Strategy, John Palfrey Open Access, Peter Suber OPEN ACCESS PETER SUBER TheMIT Press | Cambridge, Massachusetts | London, England © 2012 Massachusetts Institute of Technology This work is licensed under the Creative Commons licenses noted below. To view a copy of these licenses, visit creativecommons.org. Other than as provided by these licenses, no part of this book may be reproduced, transmitted, or displayed by any electronic or mechanical means without permission from the publisher or as permitted by law. This book incorporates certain materials previously published under a CC-BY license and copyright in those underlying materials is owned by SPARC. Those materials remain under the CC-BY license. Effective June 15, 2013, this book will be subject to a CC-BY-NC license. MIT Press books may be purchased at special quantity discounts for business or sales promotional use.
    [Show full text]
  • Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (At Least for Now) Save Toll Access Journals?
    Will Sci-Hub Kill the Open Access Citation Advantage and (at least for now) Save Toll Access Journals? David W. Lewis October 2016 © 2016 David W. Lewis. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Introduction It is a generally accepted fact that open access journal articles enjoy a citation advantage.1 This citation advantage results from the fact that open access journal articles are available to everyone in the word with an Internet collection. Thus, anyone with an interest in the work can find it and use it easily with no out-of-pocket cost. This use leads to citations. Articles in toll access journals on the other hand, are locked behind paywalls and are only available to those associated with institutions who can afford the subscription costs, or who are willing and able to purchase individual articles for $30 or more. There has always been some slippage in the toll access journal system because of informal sharing of articles. Authors will usually send copies of their work to those who ask and sometime post them on their websites even when this is not allowable under publisher’s agreements. Stevan Harnad and his colleagues proposed making this type of author sharing a standard semi-automated feature for closed articles in institutional repositories.2 The hashtag #ICanHazPDF can be used to broadcast a request for an article that an individual does not have access to.3 Increasingly, toll access articles are required by funder mandates to be made publically available, though usually after an embargo period.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Access, Open Education and Open Data
    IFMSA Policy Proposal OpenAccess, OpenEducation and OpenData Proposed by Team of Officials Presented to the IFMSA General Assembly August Meeting 2017 in Arusha, Tanzania Policy Commission • Eleanor Parkhill, Medsin-UK, [email protected] • Kim van Daalen, IFMSA-The-Netherlands, ifmsa-the- [email protected] • Alexander Lachapelle, Liaison Officer for Medical Education issues, IFMSA, [email protected] Policy Statement Introduction Scholarly material is essential for research and education. Committing to making high value scientific knowledge accessible to researchers, scientists, entrepreneurs, and policy makers worldwide is a major step towards better health outcomes for all. Yet, cost barriers or use restrictions often prevent health professionals worldwide - and scientists from all areas - from engaging or consulting the very materials that report scientific discovery. Over the past decade, Open Access, Open Education & Open data have become central to advancing the interests of researchers, scholars, students, businesses and the public. Yet, while consulting academic journals, students face limited access to published research output, data and papers because of very high fees. The high cost of academic journals restricts the use of knowledge. A vast amount of research is funded from public sources – yet taxpayers are locked out by the cost of access. IFMSA Position The International Federation of Medical Students’ Associations (IFMSA) firmly believes in the importance of openness across all published research outputs (including among others, all online research output, peer-review and non-peer-reviewed academic journal articles, conference papers, theses, book chapters, monographs). Thereby IFMSA believes in the ability of openness to improve the educational experience, democratize access to research and education, advance research and education, and improve the visibility and impact of scholarship.
    [Show full text]
  • PLOS Biology Open Research: Protocols in PLOS ONE
    COVID-19, Open Research, Trust and Transparency Niamh O’Connor │ March 2021 …is a nonprofit, Open Access publisher empowering researchers to accelerate progress in science and medicine by leading a transformation in research communication. We propelled the movement for OA alternatives to subscription journals. We established the first multi-disciplinary publication inclusive of all research regardless of novelty or impact. And we demonstrated the importance of open data availability. All articles across our journals are published under CC BY licence. From Open Access to Open Science How do we co-create a system that’s open for everyone? From Open Access to Open Research “Openness enables researchers to address entirely new questions and work across national and disciplinary boundaries.” NASEM Report, Open Science by Design, 2018 The chain, whereby new scientific discoveries are built on previously established results, can only work optimally if all research results are made openly available to the scientific community.’ Schiltz M (2018), PLoS Biol 16(9): e3000031. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000031 Open research increases trust https://www.pewresearch.org/f act-tank/2019/10/04/most- americans-are-wary-of- industry-funded-research/ Copyright 2019 Pew Research Center Trends: impact of the early months of the pandemic April 2020 theplosblog.plos.org/2020/04/learning-how-we-can-support-researchers-during-covid-19/ Open Research: Pre-prints Note: 2018 figures are from May; 2021 is to mid-February; Percentages are of those articles
    [Show full text]
  • WHO/Plos Collection ‘‘No Health Without Research’’: a Call for Papers
    Editorial WHO/PLoS Collection ‘‘No Health Without Research’’: A Call for Papers Tikki Pang1*, Robert F. Terry1, The PLoS Medicine Editors2* 1 World Health Organization, Department of Research Policy and Cooperation, Geneva, Switzerland, 2 PLoS Medicine It seems astonishing that in the 21st research systems [5]. We would then 7. Exercises to evaluate the impact of century decisions on health care can still aim to publish a WHO/PLoS Collection research investments; be made without a solid grounding in culminating in 2012 to coincide with the 8. Experiences with external foreign aid research evidence. This is true even in release of the WHR. Thus, we welcome for research. clinical research, whether for simple or examples of research and/or case studies complex interventions [1], where system- in the following areas. Ideally, studies or reports should not be atic reviews time and time again conclude merely descriptions of activities but should that the evidence base is inadequate [2]. It 1. Experience with setting and imple- include evaluation of the impact of initia- is even more true in the areas of health menting health research priorities; tives after their implementation. Special policy and health systems, where quality 2. Experience with building, strengthen- consideration will also be given to system- research is hampered further by a lack of ing, and retaining research capacity, at atic and well-performed multi-country shared definitions, a lack of consensus on both the individual and institutional comparative studies on the topics men- guiding principles, poor capacity (especial- levels; tioned above, including systematic reviews, ly in low-resource regions), and methodo- 3.
    [Show full text]
  • Download Issue
    SCIENCE DITOR E A Publication of the Council of Science Editors In this issue • Perspectives on Open Access • More 2012 Annual Meeting Reports • 2013 Annual Meeting Program and Short Course Previews JANUARY – MARCH 2013 • VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 1 VIEWPOINT SCIENCE 2 Perspectives on Open Access. PATRICIA K BASKIN EDITOR ARTICLES 3 Open Access Demystified: Flavors, Colors, and Practices in Today’s Scholarly Publishing Marketplace. MORNA CONWAY JANUARY – MARCH 2013 5 Open Acess: Scholarly Publishers Can Take the Lead. DAVID CROTTY VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 1 8 Embracing Open Access. JOYCE-RACHEL JOHN 9 PLOS and the Surge in Global Momentum for Open Access. KRISTEN RATAN Science Editor (ISSN 1535-5365) is published quar- terly by the Council of Science Editors Inc, 10200 11 An Open-Access Future: Challenges and Opportunities for the Humanities and Social W 44th Street, Suite 304, Wheat Ridge, CO Sciences. WILL SCHWEITZER and CHARLES B CHOE 80033, and serves as a forum for the exchange of 13 The American Physical Society’s Experiences in Open-Access Publishing. ideas among professionals concerned with publish- DANIEL T KULP ing in the sciences. We encourage contributions of articles on peer-review research, editorial processes, 14 Evolving Access: Genetics Society of America Journals GENETICS and G3: ethics, and other items of special interest to our Genes|Genomes|Genetics. TRACEY DEPELLEGRIN readers. For more details about submission, see our 16 One Society’s Perspective on Open-Access Publishing. HEATHER GOODELL Information for Contributors page at www.council- 17 PeerJ Heralds in a New Era of Innovation and Affordability in Academic Publishing. scienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3369.
    [Show full text]