07/11/03

In support of the traditional publishing model

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>In support of the traditional publishing model</h1>
<h4></h4>
</div>
<br />
<br />

<div id="article-body">
<p><P>The launch of PLoS Biology, an open access biology journal, last month, has heightened debate on initiatives to boost free access to scientific literature for all.</P><br />
<P>But in this article, Brian Crawford argues that little proof exists to warrant overturning the current publishing system — a system that has been refined over many decades and works to the mutual benefit of various stakeholders.</P><br />
<P>He says that the model put forward by PLoS Biology, in which authors pay a fee for having their research published, is not viable in the long term. But he praises other initiatives, such as the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), which allows institutions in some developing countries to access selected scientific journals for free.</P><br />
<P> <a  href="http://www.lancet.com/journal/vol362/iss9395/full/llan.362.9395.editorial_and_review.27695.1" target="_blank" onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview('/tracking/external/'+this.href);" rel="noopener noreferrer">Link to full article in The Lancet</A>* <BR>* Free registration is required to view this article.</P></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/in-support-of-the-traditional-publishing-model/" 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/in-support-of-the-traditional-publishing-model/",null,true])
</script>
</div>

The launch of PLoS Biology, an open access biology journal, last month, has heightened debate on initiatives to boost free access to scientific literature for all.

But in this article, Brian Crawford argues that little proof exists to warrant overturning the current publishing system — a system that has been refined over many decades and works to the mutual benefit of various stakeholders.

He says that the model put forward by PLoS Biology, in which authors pay a fee for having their research published, is not viable in the long term. But he praises other initiatives, such as the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI), which allows institutions in some developing countries to access selected scientific journals for free.

Link to full article in The Lancet*
* Free registration is required to view this article.