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:
  1. You have to credit our authors.
  2. You have to credit SciDev.Net — where possible include our logo with a link back to the original article.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Scientific publishers have traditionally covered their costs — and made their profits — by charging users for reading articles. By contrast, the open-access model championed by the Public Library of Science (PLoS) and others lets readers access content for free, but makes authors pay to publish their research.

In this article, Science editor-in-chief Donald Kennedy gives his take on the pros and cons of both approaches. He argues that it is a good thing that we now have both models in play — but that neither model can lay special claim to the moral high ground.

PLoS has made an impressive start, he says, but there are questions about its long-term sustainability. As open-access journals gain popularity, they will receive more submissions and will have to reject more papers — an expensive process. But Science equally faces problems, not least the difficulties in selling print copies of the journal in an increasingly Internet-led publishing market.

Link to full article in the Stanford Report