Open Access News

But as I implied at the outset, perceptions matter. The very success of CAS [Chemical Abstracts Service] and Pubs [Publications Division] has made ACS [American Chemical Society] by far one of the largest scientific organizations in terms of revenues (as well as costs, which is often overlooked --this is, after all, a nonprofit organization). There is a tendency in America to root for the underdog. How we are perceived is very important. Here is where the focus on membership remains significant. Let me give two recent examples. Much of the early press coverage of the disagreement between ACS and the National Institutes of Health over the development of an NIH database that could directly compete with the CAS Registry did not enhance the image of ACS. I would argue that, while there were legitimate reasons for concern on the part of CAS, the perception in some people's minds was that this was not an effort to protect a very useful base of a service to all of science, created and owned by a volunteer membership organization, but rather it was seen as protecting a business against development of a free public service that would be a direct competitor in the marketplace. As of this writing, it looks like an amicable settlement to the disagreements will be arrived at eventually, one that should satisfy everyone's needs. But the lack of support in the media for the ACS position should give us pause. The other example I would like to present is the open-access movement and Pubs. There are some in the science community who feel strongly that all scientific publications should be available to everyone for free, with the costs borne primarily by the producers of the papers. The Pubs position has been that it is better to have free access to the producers of the papers and cover the costs of production necessary to maintain high quality (including editing and review) through subscription fees paid by the users. In this case, there is wide recognition that ACS journals are produced with major input by society members, and that Pubs policies are influenced by member concerns. (For example, consider recent policy changes in handling archives for electronic journals.) I would argue that, because Pubs is seen as an active part of a membership organization, there was more of a willingness to engage in a debate among friends. The perception that Pubs's positions were merely corporate was less widespread....Views expressed on this page are those of the author and not necessarily those of board.