Disciplinary Action. Nature 495(7442):409–410.
Disciplinary Action [link]Paper  doi  abstract   bibtex   
How scientists share and reuse information is driven by technology but shaped by discipline. [Excerpt] [] [...] The transformation of research publishing is less a revolution and more a war of attrition. Battle lines were drawn long ago and all sides are well dug-in. In 2001, this journal published a series of viewpoints on the future of 'e-access to the primary literature' (see go.nature.com/pezj84). Those attitudes seem strikingly familiar today. At the time, the founders of the Public Library of Science initiative (then PLS, now reborn as the publisher PLoS) urged that research results should be stored in free, online, centralized repositories. Technology enthusiasts sang the praises of easy search and retrieval across a wide range of publication formats beyond the traditional journal article, but warned of the need for common standards. Publishers pointed out that someone would have to finance the publication of the increasing tide of information, and debated where revenue sources should come from. [] There was a voice missing from that debate: yours. More than a decade on, this journal's publisher, Nature Publishing Group (NPG), tried to remedy that by surveying more than 23,000 scientists about their experience of and opinions on open-access publishing. The key question is not just what scientists could have, but what they want. [...] [] One preliminary result that stands out is the diversity of experiences and attitudes across disciplines. In biology, 17\,% of papers published by the respondents over the past three years had been immediately made free for all to read by paying the publisher up front, and more than half of the biologists surveyed said that they had published at least one such paper. In chemistry, the proportion of papers was just 4\,%, and less than one-quarter of chemists had published at least one open-access paper. More than half of biologists felt that ” all papers should be published open-access”, whereas just under one-third of chemists agreed (the remaining one-third of chemists neither agreed nor disagreed). [] Nor do scientists hold consistent views about how widely information should be shared and reused. [...] [] [...] [] The dazzling variety of publishing options will fragment the information available on the web. Scholars need to think through how they would like that information to be shared and reused – answers may be different for the various disciplines. One revolution does not yet fit all.
@article{natureDisciplinaryAction2013,
  title = {Disciplinary Action},
  author = {{Nature}},
  date = {2013-03},
  journaltitle = {Nature},
  volume = {495},
  pages = {409--410},
  issn = {0028-0836},
  doi = {10.1038/495409b},
  url = {http://mfkp.org/INRMM/article/14090276},
  abstract = {How scientists share and reuse information is driven by technology but shaped by discipline.

[Excerpt] [] [...]

The transformation of research publishing is less a revolution and more a war of attrition. Battle lines were drawn long ago and all sides are well dug-in. In 2001, this journal published a series of viewpoints on the future of 'e-access to the primary literature' (see go.nature.com/pezj84). Those attitudes seem strikingly familiar today. At the time, the founders of the Public Library of Science initiative (then PLS, now reborn as the publisher PLoS) urged that research results should be stored in free, online, centralized repositories. Technology enthusiasts sang the praises of easy search and retrieval across a wide range of publication formats beyond the traditional journal article, but warned of the need for common standards. Publishers pointed out that someone would have to finance the publication of the increasing tide of information, and debated where revenue sources should come from.

[] There was a voice missing from that debate: yours. More than a decade on, this journal's publisher, Nature Publishing Group (NPG), tried to remedy that by surveying more than 23,000 scientists about their experience of and opinions on open-access publishing. The key question is not just what scientists could have, but what they want. [...]

[] One preliminary result that stands out is the diversity of experiences and attitudes across disciplines. In biology, 17\,\% of papers published by the respondents over the past three years had been immediately made free for all to read by paying the publisher up front, and more than half of the biologists surveyed said that they had published at least one such paper. In chemistry, the proportion of papers was just 4\,\%, and less than one-quarter of chemists had published at least one open-access paper. More than half of biologists felt that ” all papers should be published open-access”, whereas just under one-third of chemists agreed (the remaining one-third of chemists neither agreed nor disagreed).

[] Nor do scientists hold consistent views about how widely information should be shared and reused. [...]

[] [...]

[] The dazzling variety of publishing options will fragment the information available on the web. Scholars need to think through how they would like that information to be shared and reused -- answers may be different for the various disciplines. One revolution does not yet fit all.},
  keywords = {*imported-from-citeulike-INRMM,~INRMM-MiD:c-14090276,~to-add-doi-URL,cross-disciplinary-perspective,disciplinary-barrier,free-scientific-knowledge,free-software,knowledge-freedom,open-access,open-data,open-science,scientific-knowledge-sharing},
  number = {7442}
}
Downloads: 0