Richard T. Johnson, Message from the editor, Annals of Neurology, 57, 1 (2005). An editorial. Excerpt: 'This move to computerization has accelerated information access but has damaged scholarship. As an Editor, I see claims of priority for methods or observations that are already published in articles not included online or for findings not included in the online abstract. Repetitions of errors in references are seen presumably resulting from the copying of references from other articles without verification of the original references. Those old volumes in the library stacks should be preserved and not ignored....Will print journals survive? I believe some clinical journals like the Annals will. There is still a generational factor. Many of us over 50 years of age prefer to read from paper placed horizontally on our desk or propped against our knee on plane or train or in a comfortable chair rather than from a glaring vertical screen. We are the ones who respond to an online paper for review by pushing the print button....Free public access poses different problems in electronic publishing. In July 2004, the House Appropriations Committee instructed NIH to develop a proposal to make NIH supported studies immediately available to all upon publication. Since three-quarters of the top 200 rated journals are owned by scholarly societies or other non-profits, this suggestion for free access could have been catastrophic. In response to the congressional mandate the Director of NIH proposed that all scholarly articles arising out of NIH grants be placed in PUBMED central no later than six months after publication. NIH requested comments, but before this was possible the requirement was slipped into the lame duck omnibus funding bill without any hearings or comments on the possible impact on scholarly societies or publishers.'
(PS: Four quick replies. Sloppy scholarship with digital sources doesn't reflect on digitization any more than sloppy scholarship with print sources reflects on print. I'm also over 50 and I like both OA and my print button. What's the problem? There are many reasons to think that NIH public-access policy will not harm subscription-based journals, whether their publishers are for-profit or non-profit. Finally, the NIH policy did have its period of public comment, two weeks longer than the usual 60 days, and it elicited over 6,000 comments.)
Posted by
Peter Suber at 1/17/2005 03:22:00 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.
I recommend the OA tracking project (OATP) as the best way to stay on top of new OA developments. You can read the OATP feed on a blog-like web page or subscribe to it by RSS, email, or Twitter. You can also help build the feed by tagging new developments you encounter.
