Science Literature and Changing Times
Ellen made the good point during our Monday morning meetings that the appearance of science journals has changed to reflect a changing audience and has, as a result, become more visually appealing. This reminded me that recently there was a recent article in Nature about the viability of one of the recent movements in science literature–open access journals. The Nature article says that PLoS, the Public Library of Science, which produces the premier on-line, open access journal, PLoS Biology (along with 6 others in science and medicine), has been losing money during its first 3 years in existence, and suggests that the open-access journal model doesn’t make business sense.
I hope they are wrong, because open access-means everyone can “read, redistribute, and reuse your research without cost: colleagues, patients, policy makers, journalists, and the next generation of researchers” (from the PLoS Home : http://www.plos.org/journals/index.php, italics added) .
If you haven’t already, take a look at the PLoS Biology or the new journal PLoS One (a direct competitor for Nature since it accept all sorts of articles). From an occasional reader perspective, the articles are authoritative, attractive, and visually appealing.
While Nature remains one of two pre-eminent science journals (the other is Science), it is clear that “the times they are a changin.” The Nature editorial staff clearly recognizes this–and maybe they are a bit worried.
*
To prove you're a person (not a spam script), type the security word shown in the picture.
