Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
The PLoS is still getting press, This Time from over at The Scientist.
They say Debate over open access to scientific articles is steadily moving into the mainstream, with the publication this month of an editorial in The New York Times, a recently introduced Congressional bill to promote open access publishing, and a television commercial sponsored by the Public Library of Science (PLoS), a California-based group that plans to launch an open-access journal in October.
Another one thanks to Gary Price.
rteeter writes "An editorial in the Sacramento Bee supports Public Library of Science."
They point out an indicator of PloS's [publiclibraryofscience.org] potential success will be whether it has attracted top researchers to submit their studies to this journal as opposed to the traditionally dominant players in the field. PloS Biology has assembled a top-notch team of editors and reviewers, as has PloS Medicine, which will make its debut next year.
The 20-page issue (yes, it's still PDF, and likely to stay that way) is chunky this time:
Perspective: DVD Durability Survey
Perspective: Weblogging: A Tool, Not a Medium
Bibs & Blather
Scholarly Article Access (almost half the issue)
Good Stuff Perspective: Weblogging and Libraries
The idiot who puts this thing out has already been made aware that there are two, count them, two obvious errors on the first page ("September 2002" should be "September 2003" in both cases). He probably won't fix them (for reasons explained in one of the essays, oddly enough).
That's what comes of not having an editor: You can look at something six times and see what you wanted to see instead of what's there."
"Peter Scott notes that Emerald is offering free access to Library Management this week.
In case you didn't know, this "9 times a year" journal (when they don't combine issues) costs a cool $10,784. I believe it's by far the most expensive serial within librarianship.
I always wondered what could possibly justify that price.
I've taken a look and can only suggest that the curious look for yourselves. It's not hard; a year runs to 450 pages or so. Any comment from me would come off as mean-spirited."
Seeking the Recipe is an article from the Austin Chronicle on two members of UT's English department who took over the editorship of Cauda Pavonis: Studies in Hermeticism, an academic journal, they were determined to get start-up money the old-fashioned way: Ask the dean.
But the dean turned her down, as did the English department, because "they said the department has enough journals. I mean, they turned down the Chaucer Review," Frost says.
"A number of influential scientists have begun to argue that the cost of research publications has grown so large that it impedes the distribution of knowledge. Some subscriptions cost thousands of dollars per year, and those journals are usually available online only to subscribers. This looks less like dissemination than restriction, especially if it is measured against the potential access offered by the Internet. That is why a coalition led by Dr. Harold Varmus, the former director of the National Institutes of Health, is creating a new model, called the Public Library of Science."
The full op-ed [NYT]
See also, the Open Archives Initiative
jen writes "The NYTimes Reports in 2004, The Atlantic Monthly will cut its rate base, the number of copies promised to advertisers, to 325,000 from 450,000 (the magazine's actual average circulation exceeded 500,000 last year). And readers will be asked to pay almost twice as much to subscribe â€” about $30 instead of an average of about $16. The changes come after the magazine decreased its frequency to 10 times a year from 12, so the per-copy price is even higher."
With many magazines geared towards celebrity gossip, can library subscriptions to the National Enquirer be far behind?
This NYT article tells the story of the New York Star, which is revamping itself as a respectable magazine, rather than a check-out line comic.
steven bell writes "In an article titled "A Fight for Free Access To Medical Research: Online Plan Challenges Publishers' Dominance" Rick Weiss writes in the Aug. 5, 2003 Washington Post about the Public Library of Science plan for revamping how scientific literature is produced and distributed. The core of the plan is to shift the expense of publishing STM literature from the journal subscriber to the researchers, who would have to pay costs estimated at $1,500 to get an article published (the article explains how this will work). One eye-popping factoid in this article: Elsevier earns a 30% profit on $1.6 billion in revenues. What does Elsevier VP Pieter Bolman have to say? "I do realize that the 30 percent sticks out but what we still do feel -- and this is, I think, where the real measure is -- we're still very much in the top of author satisfaction and reader satisfaction." Hey buddy, couldn't you be "tops" with just a 5%-10% profit? See the article at: The Washington Post"
Jen writes "Here's a magazine that I'll never have a need to read."
You might if you're one of the "5.5 million American men over 6-foot-2 and the 1.5 million American women north of 5-foot-9." (Does this mean tall people are a significant portion of your library's user group and you need to subscribe?)
Here's the full article.
Tall magazineâ€”"because life may be short, but we're not"â€”"