Here's a Thought

By | June 4, 2006
11 Comments

Scientific research, completely free. Could it work?

Three years ago, through an organization he cofounded called the Public Library of Science, Varmus launched a set of journals, which survive not through subscriptions but by charging $1,500 to most authors (and thus their grant givers) whose articles are accepted for publication. Everything is then put online and kept there, freely accessible to anyone. Despite the newness of this model, research published in the flagship journals PLoS Biology and PLoS Medicine often finds its way to The New York Times or the BBC. Last June, less than two years after the first issue of PLoS Biology went online, Thomson Scientific, a firm that tracks citation rates, assessed the journal an “impact factor” higher than such established journals as Biological Reviews and Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Indeed, in a phenomenally short time, it has become the most cited journal in general biology.

Could work. But those who currently draw their livelihood from the up-to-$20K-per-year subscription fees from science journals are going to fight it tooth and nail. And it’s a threat to others, too. Still, it seems like an awfully compelling model.

  • http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44 Acksiom

    Phil, I have to wonder if you’ve really thought this through. First of all, it seems almost tailor-made to cause corruption of the review and editing process: “Well, if we let this one slide just a little bit, that’s an extra $1,500.00 this month. . .and the methodological structure really isn’t all that much off. . . .”

    Second, citing the NYT’s and BBC’s increasing use of them does not strike me as a positive characterization, but rather the opposite; I consider it a distinct negative.

    And for a third point, there’s the fact that one of them published this:

    ‘Circumcision Vindicated At Last!’ ? – hardly

    Which, according to what I’ve heard, apparently couldn’t find a home anywhere else. And is, as can be seen from Hugh’s usual hi-quality fisking, not only methodically, but also morally, pure trash, and should never have been published anywhere — at least, not in the professional and ethical journal community, that is. The tabloids are another story.

    Of course, the vast majority of published ‘research’ supposedly ‘demonstrating’ ‘benefits’ to routine and ritual male prepucectomy is usuallly pure trash both methodically and morally anyways, but — nevertheless.

    There are very good reasons for keeping the funding process as well-separated from the review and editing process as possible. This model not only effectively links them directly together, but does so in a causative relationship.

    I’m all for increasing access to research, but, you know, dude. Seriously. Not in exchange for lowered standards of quality, y’know? And this model effectively promotes precisely that tradeoff.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster


    Phil, I have to wonder if you’ve really thought this through. First of all, it seems almost tailor-made to cause corruption of the review and editing process: “Well, if we let this one slide just a little bit, that’s an extra $1,500.00 this month. . .and the methodological structure really isn’t all that much off. . . .”

    I agree that there’s a potential problem there, but I’m not sure that it’s insurmountable. Such a system need not reward publication absent any other considerations. What if rather than a flat fee, the rate paid to publications was based in part on an independent assessment of the editorial and review practices of that journal? In that case, letting standards slide will cost you money, not make you more. Besides, a journal is only going to be able to publish so many articles per issue, anyway. If you publish the journal, you’re better off with four articles worth $2000 each than 10 worth $500 — from a revenue, reputation, and cost-saving standpoint. Plus, serious researchers would no doubt rather shell out to get published in one of the serious journals than a dodgy “discount” journal.

    Second, citing the NYT’s and BBC’s increasing use of them does not strike me as a positive characterization, but rather the opposite; I consider it a distinct negative.

    Right. Anything that reaches the grubby masses is automatically suspect. Gotcha. Presumably, being the most cited journal in a particular discipline is equally suspect. Better this kind of information be kept among the few who can really deal with it.

  • http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44 Acksiom

    Welp, I have several points in response, but I think, Phil, that before I continue to discuss this, I’m first going to need you to provide a retraction of your gross and unwarranted misrepresentation of my comments, and an apology for attempting to put such elitist words in my mouth.

  • doctorpat

    Yeah Phil,

    Claiming that the BBC and NYT do not convey an aura of respectibility is hardly an elitist stance. If the NYT had an article naysaying nanotech you would not regard them as an authoritative source would you?

    And I would also agree that the Moral Hazard of having the money come from the authors is not a superior model on the face of it.

    I am impressed by the Thomson Scientific rating though, but it could just reflect that the journal publishes more controversial work.

    It does show that alternative publishing models could take over in scientific journals. But I don’t think this approach is the way to go.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    Acksiom,

    I really enjoy the variety of perspectives we get from commenters on this blog. Thanks for dropping by, and feel free to leave comments any time.

    Dr. Pat –

    Claiming that the BBC and NYT do not convey an aura of respectibility is hardly an elitist stance. If the NYT had an article naysaying nanotech you would not regard them as an authoritative source would you?

    Nope. The authority of popular media is not the issue.

    No one said that citations in those sources “do not convey an aura of respectability.” The money phrase was that such citations represent a “distinct negative.” There’s a major difference between not adding value and actively reducing value.

    To the extent that I understood him (which perhaps was not that great, considering his subsequent snit) Acksiom seems to be saying that a scientific journal loses credibility by being cited in the popular media.

    So this is either a slam at those particular media outlets or a slam on scientific citations in the popular media generally. If the former, Acksiom might have thrown in a word or two as to why those particular media outlets reflect a “distinct negative.” And if the latter: well, suggesting that citations in the popular media reflect a “distinct negative” is an elitist stance — I really don’t see any other way to read it. Note that that wouldn’t necessarily be Acksiom’s own stance; maybe he’s just explaining the scientific community’s elitism.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    I wonder if a third model would work – advertising.

    What if a online journal charged neither their writers nor their readers. What if they could support it all with ads for lab equipment or something.

    I know some would resist the notion of sullying science with Capitalism, but it would address Acksiom’s initial point while still opening up the journals to a larger audience.

    It shouldn’t take much revenue to support an online science journal. No costs for printing or distribution of dead tree editions, and I’d guess that the traffic would be modest by comparison to, say, a major metropolitan newspaper website.

  • http://www.artofwarplus.com/wordpress/ Will Brown

    errr, would you be talking about something like this, Stephen?

    http://www.physorg.com/

    Not saying it’s a bad model, you understand, but the addition of a direct link to the pertinent paper/research under discussion ought to be what I understand you and Phil to be suggesting. And ought to work against the standards dilution effect Acksiom raises, I think.

    I suspect the “opening the journals to a larger audience” part would require a dedicated effort to explain what the science says in lay terms (to the degree that is possible – this sort of thing is so narrowly understood because it is so hard to understand without extensive education/training and a certain inate ability). MSM science writers already do this, of course, so I’m not convinced that simply making it a “free” on-line publication will make all that much a difference.

  • http://www.mothering.com/discussions/forumdisplay.php?f=44 Acksiom

    Requiring people to engage in the most basic degree of simple courtesy before one is willing to continue having a grown-up discussion with them is not “having a snit”, Phil.

    The fact remains that you have absolutely no objective, empirical grounds for your misrepresentation of my comments.

    Or perhaps you would like to explain to your other neophilic, futurist readers here exactly what goal your use of sarcasm was intended to accomplish, and how?

    This — your blog — is the part of the new media, Phil; most appositely, in this case, in terms of its bidirectionality (which is, as a matter of fact, the core of my criticism of the NYT and BBC per se as news sources; i.e. their monodirectional, monosource natures, which lead them to tend towards FUAD communicative patterns).

    Anyhoo. Thus, instead of viewing my response as an old-style status challenge, which you would “lose” by admitting to and apologizing for your original behavioral error, you would be much better off viewing it as as a new-style status opportunity, in which you might distinguish yourself by doing such, thereby demonstrating to your readers not only your integrity and maturity, but your comparatively much greater responsiveness to their input, including when it is critical.

    Unfortunately, however, as it stands, you’re just making yourself look even more like the average, insecure, how-dare-you-question-me mass mono-media asshat.

    So, y’know, whatever, dude. It’s up to you. You can still turn this around, and actually gain status among the neophilic, futurist, and most of all grown-up readers of your blog, who tend to find that kind of high-school pissing contest behavior stupid and off-putting — to say nothing of its potentially chilling effect on their future contributions to community commentary — or, you can continue to keep behaving like an insecure teenager, and consequently lowering people’s opinion of yourself and your blog.

    Your choice. So choose wisely — that is, know exactly what goal your response is intended to accomplish, and how it is specifically, deliberately designed to do precisely that.

    [[ Editor's note from Phil

    Long-time Speculist readers know that we have a zero-tolerance policy regarding personal attacks in comments. By suggesting that I might look more like an asshat than I already do, Acksiom is putting that policy to the test. However, seeing as the starting position could be that I only look a little like an asshat now, suggesting that certain behavior could make me look more like one doesn't necessarily mean that I end up looking all that much like one. Moreover, even if Acksiom is suggesting that I already look like an asshat, this is a fairly mild personal attack. Not nearly as bad as saying I am one.

    While we're on the subject, here's a quick refresher on a few randomly chosen Speculist editorial policies:

    1. No personal attacks in comments.

    2. Sarcasm in comments is okay.

    3. The bloggers of the Speculist are only official representatives of The New Media when posting actual blog entries or performing some other editorial function; e.g., appending an Editor's note on a blog comment. When we ourselves are posting comments to a blog entry, we are at that point unofficial representatives of The General Public and, as such, are subject to the same rules as everyone else. This is why I have to go online early every morning and remove dozens of angry, profanity-laced comments which Stephen left the night before. Upon awakening sometime late that afternoon, he would probably regret leaving those comments (if he had any memory of it at all.) ]]

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    Will:

    Er…yeah, exactly like that.
    :-)

    By “opening it to a larger audience” I was still refering to scientists primarily. Many scientists throughout the world don’t have access to all of the journals they would like because their particular university or institution can’t afford to subscribe to everything.

    The present system of ridiculously priced journals is inefficient for that reason.

    Reporting science to the public falls to paid science reporters and to those brilliant bloggers who like to write about science.
    :-)

    Not that having science journals available to laypersons is a bad or worthless thing.

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Stephen Gordon

    ROTFLMAO!

    I suppose there comes a time in a man’s life when he should gracefully accept the intervention of friends.

    Thanks Phil.

    I hereby resolve to cut my morning Gin and Juice intake in half!

  • https://www.blog.speculist.com Phil Bowermaster

    I assume you mean you’ll be cutting the juice half. There are a lot of carbs in juice!