The US National Association of Science Writers has produced this guidance communicating science news. It introduces the different types of media and their different journalistic techniques; the role of the public information officers in creating science news; the dos and don'ts of media arrangements and some of the pitfalls in reporting science news that can generate misunderstanding and tension between science writers, scientists and public information officers.

This is the Association of British Science Writers' booklet on how to enter the field of science journalism. It is addressed to all aspiring science journalists, including researchers and science graduates who are considering a move away from academic research and into science writing.

Prepared by Natasha Loder, science correspondent at The Economist, the practical advice (for example, lists of training courses) is in part specific to a British audience. However, the bulk of the text describes different entry points (specialist courses, journalism courses, informal experience, internships, freelance work and so on) into science journalism, and their advantages, disadvantages and difficulties. These will likely apply to most countries where science journalism is an established profession.

The booklet includes two essays by Pallab Ghosh, science correspondent for the BBC, and Wendy Grossman, freelance science and technology writer, on broadcast journalism and online journalism. Each contains advice on entry into these media. There is also a 'People' section with biographies of various British science journalists, which provide illustrations of the different routes that can be taken into the profession.

In this paper, G. Pascal Zachary, an experienced development journalist, discusses the challenges to quality development reporting from both developed and developing countries.

He explores the different interpretations of what development is, whether it is positive or negative and how journalists can and should navigate different opinions and ideologies to produce objective pieces, be they in print, web, radio or television.

Though not with specific reference to science journalism, Zachary discusses many issues that are common to all forms of development journalism: issues of free speech, corruption, sensationalism, condescension, the influence of the media, and the importance of giving a voice to the voiceless — the poor that development is trying to reach.

Many of the challenges are shared by Western and developing country journalists alike, others are more specific. Zachary provides suggestions on how these challenges can be overcome, with six other development journalists giving their views on his guidance and adding recommendations of their own.

Produced by the World Health Organization (WHO), this handbook is an introduction to the science behind bird flu and the potential for an influenza pandemic. It contains background information including influenza pandemics of the 20th century, general questions about pandemics, the uncertainty surrounding bird flu, the six global pandemic phases identified by the WHO, how antiviral drugs and vaccines work, and how nations can prepare for a pandemic. It also contains an extensive list of WHO regional contacts. The 24-page handbook is regularly updated and is useful as a fact checking reference and background information source for journalists.

This report analyses key issues surrounding decision-making on GM crops in developing countries. The document was written by Ehsan Masood and others as part of Panos’ Communicating Research through the Media Programme, Relay.

Using case studies from Brazil, India, Kenya, Thailand and Zambia, the report explores how policies and regulations are developed, and who is involved in decision-making processes around GM technology. The authors look at the role played by scientists, international bodies, industry and farmers’ groups and the degree of public participation in decision-making, noting that scientific expertise is most influential throughout the process.

The document also examines the degree to which the media succeeds in performing its key role as facilitator of informed debate. In presenting evidence from their survey of media coverage of GM issues in the countries studied, the authors find a general lack of analytical reporting, with many journalists simply relaying government announcements. Farmers’ viewpoints are generally under represented.

This useful and informative report provides real-world examples of decision-making processes on GM in a variety of developing countries. It will be valuable to anyone interested in such processes or in how well the media supports them.

This document summarises the 12th email conference of the FAO’s e-forum on biotechnology, which took place during January and February 2005. The topic was public participation, and particularly the involvement of people in rural areas. Some 70 international participants contributed to the discussion, and the points they raised are summarised here.

These include the appropriate degree and nature of involvement by rural people in policy-making on issues to do with genetically modified organisms (GMOs); the type of information such groups would need in order to participate effectively; the quality of such information and the problems caused by ‘misinformation’ about GMOs; and the appropriate channels and mechanisms for engaging with rural groups, along with the costs involved.

As with all the FAO e-forum conferences, this discussion provides a valuable insight into the range of opinions, experience and expertise involved in the process of public participation, seen from both an international an local perspective. The document therefore provides a valuable introduction to the areas of consensus and disagreement, which policy-makers, journalists, educators and others will all find useful.

This is the written evidence given by Britain's largest science and technology publisher to a UK parliamentary inquiry on scientific publications.

In the statement, Reed Elsevier defends the traditional 'user-pays' model of scientific publishing.

It argues that by introducing an 'author-pays' model, open access "risks undermining public trust in the integrity and quality of scientific publications that has been established over hundreds of years". Furthermore, the financial viability of open-access models of scientific publishing has yet to be proven, it says.

This is an extract of a letter from Richard Charkin, chief executive of Macmillan publishers, which was submitted as written evidence to a UK parliamentary inquiry on scientific publications.

In the letter, Charkin argues that the 'author-pays' model used by open-access journals "potentially undermines the integrity of the world's highest quality journals, with unwelcome consequences for the scientific community, and for the wider public".

The publisher estimates that it costs £10,000-30,000 to publish a research paper in Nature. "Such an amount would be hardly affordable to most research scientists, and so journals such as Nature would be forced to reduce editorial criteria, and publish more, lower quality papers, and/or favour wealthy authors that were in a position to afford such a fee," the statement says.

This is an overview of the open-access movement and its potential, designed for members of the research and academic communities.

It highlights the key points to consider in thinking about and discussing open access, gives examples of open-access implementation, and provides sources for more information.

Issues addressed by the document include: why access to information is important, and what obstacles limit access. It also lists initiatives that call for open access and gives links to other resources.

This is a statement of principle that was drafted at a meeting in April 2003 at the headquarters of the US-based Howard Hughes Medical Institute.

The statement spells out significant concrete steps that all relevant parties — including scientific research organisations, scientists, publishers and librarians — can take to promote the rapid and efficient transition to open-access publishing.

Signed by more than 20 senior figures, the document includes statements from working groups on institutions and funding agencies, libraries and publishers, and scientists and scientific societies.

This document is designed to guide institutions on how to create digital collections of the intellectual output of a single university or a multiple institution community of colleges and universities in an 'institutional repository'.

It outlines the benefits of this approach to organising and disseminating information, and addresses cost and intellectual-property issues.

The document also gives guidance on: organisational, administrative and cultural issues; content policies; faculty outreach and participation; and technical and infrastructure issues.

This is a list of frequently asked questions on self-archiving of research papers.

It provides information on what self-archiving is, and gives advice on how researchers, libraries, publishers and research funders can facilitate self-archiving. 

The questions also address concerns that researchers may have about self-archiving their research, including issues about copyright and peer review.

This declaration was signed by key players in the open-access movement at a meeting organised by the Open Society Institute in Budapest in February 2002.

It calls for barriers to open-access publishing to be removed, with the aim that research articles from all academic fields be made freely available on the Internet.

Other individuals and organisations are now invited to sign the declaration to pledge their support and help ensure a transition to open-access publishing. More than 3,000 individuals and 200 organisations have added their name to the initiative.

This survey, conducted by the International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications, gives an overview of the activities and views of publishers regarding access to their information within the developing world either free or at reduced cost.

The results of a short questionnaire, which was distributed widely on ListServs and email lists, highlight a number of small publisher-specific programmes already in place, mostly associated with learned societies and society membership. Countries eligible to join the initiatives are listed.

The survey also underlines the complexity of the publishing environment, where involvement in any initiatives to promote readership are dependent on other partnerships – with other publishers, with other societies, and with membership requirements.

This comprehensive study of the current status of the global science publishing industry was commissioned by the UK-based Wellcome Trust and completed in September 2003.

It reviews how the current market structure functions - in terms of supply and demand - who the key players are, and how its operation affects the scientific community and progress of scientific research. It then considers how the electronic revolution has impacted the current system, and evaluates the changes it makes possible.

The report ends with a study of the future possibilities for scientific publishing, depending on how the key players react (and interact) to the new possibilities offered by information technologies. As a conclusion, the Wellcome Trust gives its endorsement to open access in science publishing.

ICSU has published four brochures on: universal access to scientific knowledge; decision making and governance; policy issues for scientific information; and improving education and training.

The brochures were published following a meeting on 'Science in the Information Society' held in Paris in March 2003 by the International Council for Science (ICSU), the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO).

This workshop brought together scientific experts, managers and representatives from several inter-governmental agencies to try and identify the major issues for science in relation to the World Summit on the Information Society.

[The brochures are available in English, French and Spanish.]

This document - compiled on behalf of the international scientific community - suggests amendments to the Draft Declaration of Principles and Draft Plan of Action Plan for the World Summit on the Information Society, the first stage of which was held in Geneva, Switzerland in December 2003.

The document underlines the central role of science in the information society, and says that information and communications technologies "provide an historic opportunity to reduce the scientific divide: they improve and increase the transfer of scientific knowledge between developed and developing countries".

It specifically urges the Summit to "promote electronic publishing, affordable pricing schemes and appropriate open source initiatives to make scientific information affordable and accessible on an equitable basis in all countries".

This statement, published in the first issue of the open-access journal PLoS Biology, outlines the philosophy behind the journal – the first to be published by the Public Library of Science.

PLoS Biology has been launched to demonstrate that high-quality journals can flourish without charging for access, say the founders of the initiative, Patrick Brown, Michael Eisen and Harold Varmus. The aim is to cause a revolution in science publishing.

The statement also explores the financial 'producer pays' model adopted by PLoS, and refers to examples of the recent surge of awareness and support for open-access publication, both within the scientific community and in the public at large.

This declaration was made at a meeting on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities held in Berlin, Germany in October 2003. It aims to promote the Internet as a "functional instrument for a global scientific knowledge base", and says that "content and software tools must be openly accessible and compatible".

It has been signed by more than 20 international research and cultural heritage organisations, including seven large German research organisations.

The signatories encourage their researchers and grant recipients to publish their work according to the principles of the open-access paradigm, and encourage the "holders of cultural heritage" to support open access by providing their resources on the Internet.

[The declaration is available in English, French and German.]