23/04/03

On making science freely available

By: Aravind B. Akella

We encourage you to republish this article online and in print, it’s free under our creative commons attribution license, but please follow some simple guidelines:

You have to credit our authors.
You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
You can simply run the first few lines of the article and then add: “Read the full article on SciDev.Net” containing a link back to the original article.
If you want to also take images published in this story you will need to confirm with the original source if you're licensed to use them.
The easiest way to get the article on your site is to embed the code below.

For more information view our media page and republishing guidelines.

The full article is available here as HTML.

Press Ctrl-C to copy

<div class="article-wrap">
<div id="article-introduction">
<h1>On making science freely available</h1>
<h4>By: Aravind B. Akella</h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><TABLE align=right></p>
<p><TR><br />
<TD class=tabletext><IMG height=108 src="http://c96265.r65.cf3.rackcdn.com/2003feb_books2.jpg" width=117></TD></TR></TABLE>The inception of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) last December has raised some interesting debates among academics as well as the general public.<BR><BR>In this letter to <em>Science</em>, Aravind B. Akella of the American Institute of Physics, says that much of this coverage has omitted the large role of scientific societies in the publication process. The author goes on to criticise the PLoS, saying that its claims of benefiting doctors and scientists in poor countries — among others — is not so straightforward.<BR><BR>Akella points to examples of current efforts to provide access to the results of scientific research — such as the <em>New England Journal of Medicine’s</em> deal for low-income countries — and says that money would be better spent on developing new technologies, building a consortium of scientific publishers, and educating the public to exploit existing sources.<BR><BR><a href="/sci.cfm?redir=http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/299/5611/1314?ijkey=T8g1kltGKC016&keytype=ref&siteid=sci" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to full letter to <em>Science</em></A><BR><BR>Reference: <em>Science</em> 299, 1314 (2003)<BR><BR>Photo credit: <a href="http://www.freeimages.co.uk" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">www.freeimages.co.uk</A></p>

</div>
<div class="quick-links-wrapper">
<h3>You might also like</h3>
[related-articles]
</div>
<p>This article was originally published on <a href="https://www.scidev.net" target="_blank">SciDev.Net</a>. Read the <a href="https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/on-making-science-freely-available/" target="_blank">original article</a>.</p>
<script type="text/javascript">
(function(e,t,n,r,i,s,o){e["GoogleAnalyticsObject"]=i;e[i]=e[i]||function(){(e[i].q=e[i].q||[]).push(arguments)},e[i].l=1*new Date;s=t.createElement(n),o=t.getElementsByTagName(n)[0];s.async=1;s.src=r;o.parentNode.insertBefore(s,o)})(window,document,"script","//www.google-analytics.com/ga.js","ga");var _gaq=_gaq||[];var _gaq=_gaq||[];_gaq.push(["_setAccount","UA-3223906-8"],["_trackEvent","article interaction","republished","https://www.scidev.net/global/opinions/on-making-science-freely-available/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

The inception of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) last December has raised some interesting debates among academics as well as the general public.

In this letter to Science, Aravind B. Akella of the American Institute of Physics, says that much of this coverage has omitted the large role of scientific societies in the publication process. The author goes on to criticise the PLoS, saying that its claims of benefiting doctors and scientists in poor countries — among others — is not so straightforward.

Akella points to examples of current efforts to provide access to the results of scientific research — such as the New England Journal of Medicine’s deal for low-income countries — and says that money would be better spent on developing new technologies, building a consortium of scientific publishers, and educating the public to exploit existing sources.

Link to full letter to Science

Reference: Science 299, 1314 (2003)

Photo credit: www.freeimages.co.uk