Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Almighty Buck Science

Public Library of Science Launches 101

Posted by Hemos
from the taking-flight dept.
limbicsystem writes "The first issue of the free journal Public Library of Science Biology hits the presses tonight. With Lawrence Lessig on the Board, the PLOS team are taking the Creative Commons to the world of science publishing and hope to compete with the big-name journals Science and Nature. The move towards freely-available scientific journals is supported by major funding bodies who are tired of seeing their grant money spent on subscriptions to commercial journals that can cost thousands of dollars a year. PLOS-Biology is available online at plos.org. The inagural issue has an essay by the executive director of the creative commons, Glen Otis Brown. Oh, and it's all running on Linux ;)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Public Library of Science Launches

Comments Filter:
  • by rf0 (159958)
    Cool now I can find out more tropical diseases that I might be suffering wrong and spend more time with my cute local doctor :)

    Rus
  • by rhetland (259464) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:08AM (#7198565)
    Journals have become *very* expensive. Even for those of us at universities, who have unlimited online access, we are paying gigantic prices for these journals indirectly through library fees. Many journals are over $1000 a pop, and more for online access. PLOS is one of many answers to this problem.

    Because most people can already get to publication quality work even using such outmoded technology as MS word, it seems that these journals do not necessarily have to exist to typeset papers, as in the old days.

    As far as I see it, the biggest impediment to a successfully open source journal is peer review. The quality of the journal has to be insured. This does not mean that people get paid to review papers (I wish...), but rather that there has to be a knowledgeable editor who knows who knows what in the field, and can put together different reviews to actually decide if the paper is publishable or not. Again, often this person can be underpaid, but there does need to be some sort of staff. It will be interesting to see how PLOS deals with this.

    Once these problems have been overcome, the journal needs to be seen as a good place to publish. Reputation is critical to the success of a journal, and it depends mostly on the quality of papers that it publishes. There are many ways to rank journal influence, but most have to do with how often papers from that journal are cited in other scientific papers. Hopefully, with more access, PLOS will have an edge here, since you could send an electronic copy to all your colleagues completely legally.

    Finally, it will be interesting to see how many other fields are added. Will they stick to the biggies, like genetics and medicine, or will they head off into the smaller disciplines.

    I for one, am hoping for the this project to succeed.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      The fact that it exists is success already.

      What we need is a bit more activism on campus. I don't see why kids are so conservative these days. You'd think we'd be seeing people scan journals and share them on-line, but sadly that's not the case.
      Academic journals are one of the saddest scams in history. The authors aren't paid to write, they've got to write to get tenure or even a position for that matter. The journals themselves claim they're just covering costs, but the libraries are expected to
      • Concerning the price of academic journals and who pays, there's this little ritual that libraries go through every year, where a committee notes that, once again, journal prices have risen an order of magnitude faster than library funding, so which journals will we cut from our subscription list this year? The rising cost of journals is not just reflected in tuition or taxes, but also in the *loss of access* to other journals and in *decisions not to buy books* because there's no room left in the materials
    • by scientistguy (627346) on Monday October 13, 2003 @09:55AM (#7198650) Journal
      While I also want to see PLoS succeed (and indeed have recently submitted work there), please note the PLoS publication charges per article at $1500 a pop. One also obviously has to pay to receive the printed form of the journal - although I doubt many will do this. So while the costs have been shifted and the science has been made more generally available to the public at large, grants are in fact going to be charged. Many journals charge publication costs for submitted and accepted work, but PLoS is definitely on the high end. This enterprise is going have to recoup for operating costs, and the largess of private donors won't completely cover it. Aside from this point, I do agree with many of your sentiments. I would not worry much about the editorial board. The professional editors they have signed up are first rate and quite idealistic. The academic editorial board is also quite strong. Judging from the quality of some of the initial submissions, they seem to be off to a strong start.
      • $1500 does seem very high for publication costs, but I think it's a more "legitimate" charge on your grant. Also it would be a one-time occurence on your grant and only when you publish. Rather than many times that cost for all the different journals you need to subscribe to during your research. Ideally, suppose every journal just had high publication charges and distributed their content free, wouldn't researchers/libraries end up saving a lot? Of course, this would mean that researchers with a high out
      • While I also want to see PLoS succeed (and indeed have recently submitted work there), please note the PLoS publication charges per article at $1500 a pop.
        Does that mean researchers from third-world countries are indirectly excluded from publishing there? How many of them might decide that instead of trying to publish the results in PLoS their $1500 would be better spent on hiring a research assistant for a year (and publishing in some lesser journal)?
        • no ... they will work with you if you can't afford the fee. it initially gave me pause when my postdoc mentioned what the $1500 publication, but having the science freely available to others if published is worth it. in addition, they do ask that you contact them if you can't afford the publication cost (the request is within their online submission forms), and knowing a few of the people involved, i am certain that they would waive it for those who did not have the ability to cover the charge.
      • Yes, the costs are high ... but as has been pointed out here, they have to be, at least in the beginning.

        Because PLoS is an effort to bring research to the general public or at least to more people than has generally been the case, it can't get its operating fees from charging people to view the articles online, the way Nature and Science do. Because those journals lock down their content so tightly, I can't share a paper with friends.

        For example, I'm a member of an online community that likes to talk abo
      • by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Monday October 13, 2003 @01:17PM (#7200091) Homepage
        If you can't afford the fee, they will lower it or even remove it. They promise paying the fee has no influence on whether the article is accepted.

        One could view the fee as a "suggested voluntary donation", however scientist are generally not allowed to spend research grants on charity. I know I'm not, I tried to make my university donate money to the FSF as a thank for the software we use. We ended up buying overpriced stuff from them instead.

        By phrasing it this way it will be a lot easier to get the payment accepted. It probably also put a higher moral pressure on the submitters to pay if they can.
        • One could view the fee as a "suggested voluntary donation", however scientist are generally not allowed to spend research grants on charity.

          Page charges are typically requested by even for-profit journals. This appears to be an online analogue to that. Many grants have a line item for this very thing. In every journal I've published, they've been optional, but I'm not sure what percentage of researchers actually pay them.

      • by Bowling Moses (591924) on Monday October 13, 2003 @03:04PM (#7201111) Journal
        Actually, $1500 per article isn't all that bad. Not too long ago I got a paper published. It cost $350 per figure, plus a charge for the first 10 pages (that I now forget) and then an additional charge for pages past the first ten. The total cost of publication for the lab for my paper was well over $2000.
    • I really hope to see this area of publishing revolutionized in the next few years: it's moving very slowly. The most "exciting" thing at the moment is the 'author pays' model of 'free publishing'. However, there appears to be no exciting movement in using technology to reduce costs. As you say, the process of peer reviewing is the most important. I have championed the /. method of working at several conferences in the last couple of years - the comment/moderate/metamoderate approach could be used to build
    • Will they stick to the biggies, like genetics and medicine, or will they head off into the smaller disciplines.

      Actually, it's the smaller disciplines (in science anyway) that have some of the highest costs. Brain Research, for example, runs $10,000 per year, last time I checked. Part of the reason for the high cost is the limited audience to spread the cost of publication around (it costs less per copy for 100,000 subscriptions than for 5,000). Related to that is the skyrocketing costs of science jou

      • Actually, it's the smaller disciplines (in science anyway) that have some of the highest costs. Brain Research, for example, runs $10,000 per year, last time I checked.

        I'd like to point out that the field of Neuroscience now qualifies as Pretty Darn Big, and, moreover, it is moving Pretty Darn Fast. This is why Elsevier and others can charge hugely for their journals: the demand *is* there, and the cost of *not* having Brain Research or (to pick a non-random example) the Journal of Comparative Neuro

        • You're absolutely right about Brain Research. It does happen to be one of those journals where you can't substitute another to get the same type and quality of articles.

          This is exactly where PLOS comes in. How about they expand into Brain Research's territory? Of course, first you have to convince the authors it's a better idea to publish in PLOS than in Brain Research.

          Nothing like a little competition to bring reality to a market, eh?

          • This is exactly where PLOS comes in. How about they expand into Brain Research's territory? Of course, first you have to convince the authors it's a better idea to publish in PLOS than in Brain Research.

            Actually, if you want "psychotically expensive institutional online access", the journals to pick on are anything by Cell Press. If PLOS could replace Neuron, the world would be a much, much less expensive place. :-)

    • Journals are very expensive. No doubt.

      Likewise, journals save lives... at least in the medical profession. Working in a university hospital we get the worse cases, and the rarest cases--and we reference the literature frequently. Just last week I was getting one of my buddies to translate an article from German...

      The medical journals, at least, are making this work by giving discount rates on subscriptions... or charging huge fees if you need access to an article on a one time basis. Thus, the hospita
    • "Journals have become *very* expensive."

      Only the ones that aren't free.

      Wikipidia is a good example of a good quality, free form content/knowledge baise.

      http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?WikiPedia

      "As far as I see it, the biggest impediment to a successfully open source journal is peer review."

      As far as i see it, this it totally wrong. So long as the journal is made public during the peer review process, and the actual "peers" (the readers) can take part in the process. (maybe a standard can be made for displaying
    • You bring up a great point. I'm working on a project at the University of Virginia to develop an online journal with emphasis on Nineteenth Century Literature. The peer review aspect is regarded as one of the most important deliverables. It is the only way to consistently deliver good content.
    • One place to start reading about the discussion of peer review w.r.t. online journals (and a lot of other stuff about the relationship between scholarly writing and publishers) would be Stevan Harnad's e-prints archive:

      http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/intpub.html
    • As far as I see it, the biggest impediment to a successfully open source journal is peer review. The quality of the journal has to be insured.

      I wouldn't worry about it. For example, as your peer, I would like to point out that the verb you are looking for is "ensured", not "insured". Some other peer will no doubt come along and note that "insured" is a permissible, though not preferred, term for the usage you have in mind, and so on.

      The system breaks down, however, for truly awful misspellings like "red
    • Create two sections, first, the peer-reviewed articles, and then, another section: Yet-to-be-peer-reviewed section....Your choice (the reader), as to what section you want to read first (or at all). That way, all articles have a chance to get read, under the circumstance that a ground breaking peice of work comes along that is so radically differnt and advanced that most scientists do no want to, or won't peer review it for whatever reason, then simply put it into the as-yet-to-be-reviewed box (section), s
    • Just give the scientists the code for /. The success of /. is owed to the user-driven review system. Scientific Journals should follow the example.
  • by BWJones (18351)
    This is good news and I welcome the opportunity to publish in a peer reviewed journal free and open to the public. I should also mention however that the other big advantage of printing in online journals is that you have no publication costs related to color print charges and such. Right now I am preparing a manuscript that would end up costing many thousands of dollars to publish in traditional journals because of all the color charges related to publishing an atlas type of paper.

    Also, check out one of
    • see the above comments where a person who submitted to this journal said it cost the submitter $1500 to process his submission. while this is alot of money, i think it's worth the price to maintain ownership of your work.
      • see the above comments where a person who submitted to this journal said it cost the submitter $1500 to process his submission. while this is alot of money, i think it's worth the price to maintain ownership of your work.

        I too believe that $1500 is a relatively small amount of money to maintain not only ownership of your work, but also ensuring that your work will continue to be available. My comment related to costs however was directed more towards actual printing costs associated with making color pla
  • These 2 pages have conflicting information:
    http://creativecommons.org/learn/licenses/ [creativecommons.org] http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=sli deshow&type=figure&sici=journal-pbio-0000009-g 001 [plosbiology.org]
    Look at "ShareAlike" and Non-commericial. The symbols are wrong.
    Also why did they make the "ShareAlike" symbol very similar to CopyLeft? It confused when I first saw it.....
  • by Tom7 (102298) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:29AM (#7198843) Homepage Journal
    The PLoS is really important. More important than "open source", and it should be on the front page of slashdot.

    Listen: Right now, basically everything published in a journal in the last 50 years is *owned* not by scientists but by publishers. You might not realize this if you never published, but journals and conferences make you *assign the copyright* for your paper to the publishing company. Not license it to them for publication (this would be reasonable), but *give* them the copyright and lose your own rights to publish and distribute the work. Here's a sample agreement from the IEEE [ieee.org] .

    This is seriously fucked up. It means that, if the publishers wanted, they could close up shop and never let anybody see the archive of scientific papers again. It means they can sue you if you publish your own paper on your web page, or make copies of it for a class you teach!

    Computer scientists, being handy with the web, typically publish their papers and then put them up on their websites, playing "civil disobedience." (Some journals have even caved to this, and part of the copyright assignment you actually get licensed to put the paper on your web page.) That means there's already a sort of PLOS for computer science: an index of Computer Scientists' web pages and publications at citeseer [nec.com] .

    The culture in other sciences, like biology, is really different. These guys write, sign the form, and then pay for a few paper copies of the article that they can give out if requested.

    The way it's happening in CS is one way to free science. It seems to be working. But for those who don't actively maintain web pages and don't have a culture where the web is the place to go to look for papers, the PLoS seems like a good way to make this happen. I really, really hope it succeeds.
    • I have a saying about things like this copyright assignment jazz: "standard forms are for other people." If you've got a good paper, you have negotiating power. Tell the journal they can't have your paper unless you retain the copyright, or at least rights to delayed republication or self-archival.

      If you're not a Web whiz, you probably know (or share an elevator daily with) one who could help. Your institution could get a bit of PR mileage out of setting up a repository of archived papers by its member
      • I have a saying about things like this copyright assignment jazz: "standard forms are for other people." If you've got a good paper, you have negotiating power. Tell the journal they can't have your paper unless you retain the copyright ...

        Have you tried this? There are two different parts of the machine here: the program committee, who decides what papers are accepted, and the publishing company, who handles the forms. I've never tried it, but the publishers don't really care much about the papers, so it
    • Computer scientists, being handy with the web, typically publish their papers and then put them up on their websites, playing "civil disobedience."

      Hmmm, I've seen plenty of biologists who do this, including my former boss, and none of them have been busted for this (so far). However, these usually tend to be fairly computer-savvy people already.

      Anyway, PubMed is already a much better way to find publications of interest in biomedical research than any other mechanism, since it's very well curated and co
    • Computer scientists, being handy with the web, typically publish their papers and then put them up on their websites, playing "civil disobedience."
      The physicists were actually way ahead [arxiv.org] of the computer scientists here. BTW, the world-wide web was invented at a physics lab :-)

      BTW, I have never, ever, ever heard of a scientist hearing even a peep of complaint from a journal about distributing reprints and preprints electronically. It's just what everyone does.

  • Does anyone know if the PLOS journals are indexed in major scientific databases (CAS, ISI WebOfScience,...) ? Couldn't find anything on the web site.
  • The PLoS information site indeed runs on Linux, but it's perhaps worth mentioning that the PLoS Biology journal itself runs on a rather less open platform [netcraft.com]. Kudos to PLoS for their launch though.

    For more on the ever-expanding open access movement in science, see Peter Suber's excellent blog: Open Access News [earlham.edu].

    Also, check out the other major open access publisher, BioMed Central [biomedcentral.com]. BioMed Central launched in 2000 and has already published more than 3000 peer reviewed biomedical research articles. [biomedcentral.com]
  • A modest proposal... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by orthogonal (588627) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:36AM (#7198877) Journal
    Freely-available scientific journals are definitely the wave of the future, but I think PLOS is missing a greater opportunity to foster scientific thought

    Not only should these articles be made availble on the web to anyone who wants to read them, but to encourage the sharing of scientific ideas, persons ought to be able to post commentary on each article in real time, avoiding the typical several week tuern-around times required to mail letters to journals.

    Of course, all commentray letters are not created equal, which could make for a plethora of uninspired or even falacious commentary. To counteract this tendency, I think that those persons who, over time, demonstrate that they have "Insightful" or "Interesting" (or even "Funny") comments to make, be allowed to make other persons' comments more or less visible by awarding them positive or negative points.

    In turn, those awarded the most moderators' points ("mod points") would get a limited number of "mod points" (say, 5) to apply to future comments, perpetuating the cycle and allowing the best commentary on each article to rise to the top -- sort of a redistribution of "good" and "bad" karma.

    While I'm not aware that such a system has ever been tried before, I cannot imagine how it might be abused, and I'm sure it would act only to stimulate a flowering of scientific discourse.

    Comments, anyone?
  • by 11223 (201561) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:45AM (#7198935)
    There are other free journals out there as well - the one I'm most familiar with is the Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research [jair.org], which is probably one of the most respected AI research volumes and has been published online since 1993.
  • I am glad to see these types of postings on slashdot as I am a biology nut who normally would not discover things of this nature until much later. I know it is not a typical slashdot posting but I am very glad to see it (as I am the many other articles related to science and biology in particular).
  • by peter303 (12292) on Monday October 13, 2003 @10:49AM (#7198967)
    One of the most basic tenants of the scientific method is the verification of scientific knowledge by by reproducable publication of data and methods. However the scientific journal - university library cabal is thwarting this goal by making scientific publications LESS AND LESS available by expensive prices, subscriptions, and lack of access to university libraries by outsiders. For example, the most widely read genral science publications Sience and Nature are online. However most content is by paid subscription only (universities often have blanket subscriptions). Even so, this is pretty open compared to journals in the medical sciences where online access is rare and prices astronomical.
  • Physisits have been doing something similar for ages. Have a look at http://arxiv.org/ [arxiv.org]. Most phyisics papers appear here first, only later going on to paper publishers. The big bifference between the two is arXiv has no reviewing process (its for pre-prints). This does make things quicker which seems to be what physist want, but might have impact on quility of papers.
    • Yes, and not only physicists - many mathemeticians publish there as well. The arxiv has been around for more than 10 years now, which makes it extremely easy to look up any paper from that period - you can access them almost instantly, free of charge, as well as do global citation searches and such. Furthermore, for the last several years many theoretical physicists have been publishing in JHEP (Journal of High Energy Physics), which is peer-reviewsd and available free of charge on the web. Since it's ne
  • One of hundreds (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It is always good to see competition to the publishing establishment with the launch of another free access journal. PLoS Biology now joins 541 other [doaj.org] open access scholarly journals in the SPARC [arl.org] project.

    Everyone here is aware, I'm sure, that there is really no such thing as "free" in publishing. Many people and hundreds of institutions are contributing their time, resources and money trying to break the stranglehold of the entrenched publishing industry.

    The only way open access can ever really succeed is

  • Another journal such as this that doesn't just fill the coffers of Wiley or Elsevier is a good thing. As other posters have pointed out, though, there are similar free electronic journals out there. One that I haven't seen mentioned is the Electronic Transactions on Numerical Analysis (http://etna.mcs.kent.edu), which has actually been around since 1993!

    A big problem with PLoS is that an author is charged $1500 (!!!) to publish in the journal. This is going to bar a lot of people who lack significant fu
    • A big problem with PLoS is that an author is charged $1500 (!!!) to publish in the journal. This is going to bar a lot of people who lack significant funding from publishing in the journal. I don't see how passing the ridiculous costs of journals from subscribers to authors is a very good fix!

      You just aren't thinking very hard about this then. Teh first journal in the PLoS line-up is PLoS:Biology; the vast majority of articles published here, if they really do make it the equivalent of Science/Natu

    • It's been mentioned above, but do note that publication fees [plos.org] will be waived [plos.org] where appropriate.

      /joeyo

      • Some funding groups, like HHMI, will also defray costs. Regardless, as has been mentioned above, paying to have your article published (especially if you want color figures) is not all that uncommon with conventional journals too.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    As a researcher PLOS might make for a good suppliment to other journals, but you still are going to need ot other journals to get by in your research.

    You'll never see anyone who's doing research at a university or in the private sector cancel their subscription to any of the major journals, even when there's alternatives out there. They're too essential.

    It might give a regular person a chance to read up on some ongoing research, but they can already do that at the library.
    • Never say never my friend.

      The mainstream journals are useful only in-so-far as they are widely available and widely read. The really big ones have had 100 years or more to gain momentum and get to where they are today! Journals like PLoS Biology have the potential to be FAR more widespread.

      Much like Open Source software, it is only a matter of time.

  • Wonderful... (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...another journal. The only excitement here is that it is free to read, though not free to publish in.

    Before people go wild about this, remember that $1500 is actually quite a lot of money, and more than many, if not most, other journals. Physical Review D, one of the most (if not the most) respected journal in its field, for example, has no page charges. It charges $2,700 for a one year online subscription, but guess what -- if your department publishes more than one paper a year (I would say a good de

    • Finally, Science and Nature are rapidly becoming obsolete...and they've had so many problems with meddlesome editors

      At least three of the PLoS editors have worked for Nature in the past. The main editor, Vivian Siegel worked for Cell - owned by Elsevier

      But then I should imagine that when they worked for Nature they were meddlesome and published "sexed up" rubbish....now they work for a free access journal they will seen as brave, visionary and skilled.

      or could it just be that they will work for whoev

  • by harnad (715639) on Monday October 13, 2003 @12:50PM (#7199871)
    The launching of PLoS Biology -- http://www Stevan Harnad Normal Stevan Harnad 2 0 2003-10-13T15:09:00Z 2003-10-13T15:09:00Z 6 866 4939 Universite du Quebec a Montreal 41 9 6065 10.2006 200

    The launching of PLoS Biology -- http://www.plosbiology.org/ [plosbiology.org]-- an outcome of Harold Varmus's highly influential 1999 Ebiomed Proposal -- http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/ebiomed. htm [nih.gov] -- is a very important event for research and researchers, for two reasons:

    (1) It is another step forward in providing open access to peer-reviewed research, a major step.

    (2) It both demonstrates and will further stimulate the research community's growing consciousness of both the need for open access and the possibility of attaining it.

    It is all the more important, therefore, that on this auspicious occasion for the open-access publication strategy (BOAI-2) we not forget or neglect the other, complementary open-access strategy, open-access self-archiving (BOAI-1) --http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml [soros.org] -- particularly because systematically supplementing BOAI-2 with BOAI-1 has the power to bring us so much more open-access, so much more quickly.

    A KEY-STROKE KOAN FOR OUR OPEN-ACCESS TIMES

    Here is an extremely conservative calculation that will give you an (I hope unforgettable) intuition for the importance of not neglecting the other road to open access:

    If, in addition to signing the PLoS open letter (pledging to boycott toll-access publishers unless they become open-access publishers http://www.plos.org/support/openletter.shtml [plos.org]), not even all the 30,000 PLoS signatories had self-archived not even all their own toll-access articles, nor even the 55% corresponding to the proportion of blue/green (self-archiving-friendly) toll-access journals -- http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Temp/rcoptable. gif [soton.ac.uk]-- but only the 18% of signatories corresponding to the proportion of postprint-green journals had self-archived just one of the articles they had published in just one of those toll-access journals, the resulting 5400 articles that had been made openly accessible by this act would still have been 5 times as many as PLoS Biology will publish in 5 years (1200 articles, assuming 20 articles per PLoS issue at $1500 a pop). And at the cost of only a few keystrokes more than what it cost to sign the petition.

    Yet all researchers did was sign the PLoS open letter, and then wait, passively, for toll-access journals to turn into open-access journals in response to the petition. And now researchers seem ready to wait yet again, passively, with the popular press now cheering from the sidelines, for more open-access journals like PLoS Biology to be created or converted, one by one.

    As we make our estimate less conservative and arbitrary, and scale it up first to 55% of all annual biology articles, and then beyond that, to the many journals that will support self-archiving if asked, I hope the scales will at last begin to drop from the eyes of those who have not yet noticed the tunnel vision and paralysis involved in focusing only on open-access publishing, when it is *open access* that is our target.

    And perhaps then we will be less surprised that the 23,500 toll-access publishers did not take our boycott threat seriously -- and, by the same token, that they still have no reason to take the handful of open-access journals created since the beginning of the '90s (of which PLoS Biology is about the 543rd) seriously -- if that's all we're prepared to do to demonstrate our need for and commitment to open access for our research, as we just keep sitting on our hands instead o

  • Great! Let's rush right out to the doctors getting their medical informaiton from free journals. Those guys charging thousands for real information are full of themselves. We don't need no stinking accuracy or credibility. If I can figure out how to put in my own clutch, they should be able to put in a heart or kidney with the same free information. I'm sure a doctor that's done it will post an article somewhere for free.
  • >"Oh, and it's all running on Linux ;)"

    Running on Linux, are you sure? Last night I did a 404 test on it, and it came back with an IIS error message. Maybe that's why it seems to have come to its knees so easily today?
    • Re:Linux? (Score:2, Informative)

      Try this link:

      http://biology.plosjms.org/nosuchfile

      And you get this error which leads me to think this the site is not "all" running on Linux:

      The page cannot be found
      The page you are looking for might have been removed, had its name changed, or is temporarily unavailable.

      Please try the following:

      * If you typed the page address in the Address bar, make sure that it is spelled correctly.
      * Open the biology.plosjms.org home page, and then look for links to the information you want.
      * Click th

  • Here's the text of the page I got when
    I tried to download the PDF's for the
    article on monkeys that can operate a
    game without moving their hands:

    "The page cannot be found

    The page you are looking for might have been
    removed, had its name changed, or is
    temporarily unavailable.

    Please try the following:

    Make sure that the Web site address displayed
    in the address bar of your browser is spelled
    and formatted correctly.

    If you reached this page by clicking a link,
    contact the Web site admi
  • Unfortunately, being that money does not yet grow on trees, the money to publish in an open access journal such as PLoS Biology has to come from somewhere. If you look at the fine print of the great majority of journals, there will be a little statement about the publication qualifying as advertisement, because the author had to pay page charges. These charges come out of grant money, and major funding agencies such as the NIH, NSF, and Wellcome Trust have already approved publication charges for open acces
  • money spent on subscriptions to commercial journals that can cost thousands of dollars a year
  • Source:
    http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hyper m ail/Amsci /2967.html

    On the Deep Disanalogy
    Between Text and Software and
    Between Text and Data
    Insofar as Free/Open Access is Concerned

    Stevan Harnad

    It would be a *great* conceptual and strategic mistake for the movement
    dedicated to open access to peer-reviewed research (BOAI)
    http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ to conflate its sense of "free"
    vs. open" with the sense of "free vs. open" as it is used in the
    free/open-source software movements. The two senses are not

FORTRAN rots the brain. -- John McQuillin

Working...