ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 706 / C&RL N ew s ■ July/August 2001 SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION Ivy Anderson, editor Public access to scientific information Are 22,700 scientists wrong? by Mary M. Case A lm ost 2 2 ,7 0 0 life scientists from 158 countries around the world have e x ­ pressed their discontent with the current sys­ tem o f scholarly com m unication and have pledged to do something about it.* All o f these scientists have signed an open letter stating that, as o f Septem ber 1, 2001, they will pub­ lish in, review and edit for, and subscribe to only those journals that agree to make the contents o f their titles available free o f charge on a p u b licly a c c e s s ib le server, su ch as PubMed Central (PMC), within six months of publication. Known as the Public Library of Science (PLoS), this grassroots movement has the potential to effect significant change in access to the biom edical and life sciences lit­ erature.2 Proponents o f PLoS are strong believers that the results o f publicly funded research should b e freely available to the public. They find no justification for private ownership and control o f the work they produce. Although they acknow ledge that publishers contribute to the final product by managing p eer re­ view and editing manuscripts, they point out that this contribution hardly m atches the cre­ ative energy and time investment o f research­ ers and the financial investment o f funding agencies and hom e institutions. As stated recently by two o f the founders o f PLoS, “Should the reward for the publish­ ers’ small contributions be permanent, pri­ vate ownership o f the published record o f scientific research, and m onop oly control over how, w hen and by w hom a paper can be read or used and how m uch this access will cost? No!”3 A second fundamental precept o f PLoS is the call for centralized electronic archives of life sciences literature. Centralized archives in standardized formats provide the founda­ tion for sophisticated full-text searching across the literature, linking among articles from dis­ parate sources, and linking to related data­ bases, encyclopedias, textbooks, and other resources. The beginnings of the initiative The PLoS initiative was founded by a small group o f leading biom edical scientists, sev­ eral o f w hom had b een involved in the de­ velopm ent o f PubMed Central (PMC). PMC itself was first proposed by Harold Varmus, then director o f the National Institutes o f Health (NIH) in the spring o f 1999- First called E-biom ed, the project was intended to “fa­ cilitate a com munity-based effort to establish an electronic publishing site.” The essential feature o f the plan was “simplified, instanta­ neous cost-free access by potential readers to E-biom ed’s entire content in a m anner that permits each reader to pursue his or her own About the author Mary M. Case is director o f the Association of Research Libraries' Office o f Scholarly Communication and a member of the Public Library o f Science Advocacy Group, e-mail: marycase@arl.org. © by Mary Case mailto:marycase@arl.org C& RL News ■ Ju ly/A u g u st 2001 / 707 Editors' n ote W e inaugurated this colu m n in Jan u ary 2 000 with an article on PubMed Central (PMC), a groundbreaking p roposal by the N ational Institutes o f H ealth to create a publicly funded, freely accessib le archive o f biom ed ical research literature. W hen our column launched, PMC was still an idea waiting to happen. Librarians and publishers eyed this challenge to their respective hegemonies— one o f publication, the other o f institutional intermediation— with apprehension, if not downright suspi­ cion. Would it succeed? How would the scholarly community respond? The scholarly community has, it appears, responded— some 22,700 strong— in the form of its own grassroots initiative, the Public Li­ brary of Science (PLoS). Now, D-Day is fast approaching. Mary Case, director of tire Asso­ ciation of Research Libraries’ Office of Scholarly Communication, brings us up to date with an iasider’s tour of how PLoS coalesced to lend substance and form to PMC’s wobbling and uncertain nebula, and suggests what libraries can do to help the fledgling new system emeige. Again, one is left to ask: will it succeed? We may soon find out. Read o n .— Jvy A n d er­ son interests as productively as possible.”4 The early version o f E-biomed called for support o f b o th p eer-rev iew ed and n o n -p ee r-re ­ viewed articles and stipulated that copyright would remain with the authors. Criticism of E-biom ed was instantaneous. Among many complaints, critics charged that E-biomed would undermine peer-review and current journals, put the governm ent in charge o f an activity best left to the private sector, and erode the financial base o f scien­ tific societies. Varmus responded: The system w e propose is intended to make knowledge and ideas in life sci­ ences widely and freely accessible to the scientific community and the pub­ lic, in the tradition o f free public librar­ ies. In no sense should E-biom ed be interpreted as a proposal to interfere with, control, or restrict the activities of existing journals or other vehicles for tran sm ittin g s c ie n tific in fo rm a tio n . Rather it is intended to develop new opportunities to improve the com m u­ nication o f science.5 Nevertheless, by the time E-biomed went online as PubMed Central in February 2000, a number o f concessions to the critics, pri­ marily publishers, had b een made. Support for a non-peer-reviewed system was put on hold; peer-reviewed content could be sub­ mitted by publishers at any time after being accepted for publication; and copyright ow n­ ership would b e determined by the partici­ pating groups (i.e., publishers, societies, edi­ torial boards). What had started out as a project with the potential to revolutionize access to scientific literature had been sig­ nificantly altered in the face of publisher pres­ sure. At launch, despite the concessions, only two journals had issues available on PMC: M o le c u la r B io lo g y o f th e C ell and P r o c e e d ­ in gs o f th e N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c ie n c e s (PNAS). To date, only eight journals have is­ sues available and another ten listed as forth­ coming. The birth of PLoS In the fall o f 2000, frustrated by the unwill­ ingness o f publishers to contribute their con ­ tent to PMC, the group o f bioscientists de­ cided that another strategy to achieve free access to the literature was necessary. If the publishers could not be persuaded by NIH acting on behalf o f scientists, perhaps they could be persuaded by the scientists them ­ selves w ho provide the papers and review and edit for the journals. Echoing Varmus’s words, the group took the nam e Public Li­ brary o f Science and developed an open let- A b o u t th e e d ito r Ivy A n derson is coordinator fo r D ig ita l Acquisitions a t Harvard University, e-mail: ivy_anderson@harvard. edu mailto:ivy_anderson@harvard.edu 708 / C&RL N ew s ■ Ju ly /A u g u st 2001 … th is grassroots m ovem ent has the potential to effect significant change in access to the biom edical and life sciences literature. ter that it began circulating via e-mail to sci­ entists around the world. Not surprisingly, when news of this effort was made public in early 2001, the debate was reignited. Although many publishers de­ scribed the goal as laudable, and even inevi­ table, they were not inclined to participate. Many publishers believe that there is no need for central repositories, especially any run by the government. Government control, it was argued, could lead to suppression of re­ search results on controversial topics and to uncertainties in funding as congressional pri­ orities change. As Science and many HighWire publish­ ers have demonstrated, publishers may be willing to make their articles available for free on their own sites, but they are not eager to turn their files over to another entity.6 They worry that the transfer of files to a third party will result in the corruption of files and com­ promise the quality of articles. In addition, they argue that in the Internet environment, a central archive, such as PMC is not needed for access across publisher resources. Search­ ing across distributed systems is currently possible and such services as CrossRef link citations among participating publishers. Moreover, access to their articles at a third- party site could undermine the publishers’ ability to attract advertising dollars to their own Web sites. Small society publishers are concerned that in disciplines where the drop-off in use over time is gradual, libraries will depend on the free access provided through the central ar­ chives rather than subscribe. In those cases, the journal may either have to cease publica­ tion or significantly increase the subscription price to its remaining subscribers. The proponents of PLoS have always said that PMC is only one of a number of possible entities that could serve as an archive. In fact, some measure of duplication is desirable as a hedge against downtime, system crashes, and heavy network traffic. PLoS has no intention of substituting one set of monopolies with another. They point to the example of GenBank, the public archive of DNA sequences, as a centralized repository in a single format that has generated a rich array of searching software and linked re­ sources. But GenBank is also duplicated at two other sites, one in Europe and one in Japan. Sequences can be deposited at any of the three sites, and the sites are synchronized daily. GenBank is housed and managed at the Na­ tional Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), a unit of the National Library of Medi­ cine and NIH, and has never had a problem with funding. There is little reason to believe that if scientists support it, PMC would not also be fully supported. Moreover, PMC is highly unlikely to have any influence on the editorial policies of archived journals. The role of the govern­ ment in this case is to provide the technical infrastructure and financial support. Editorial boards will determine what is published in their journals and subsequently submitted to PMC. In terms of publishers’ concerns about the integrity of the files when transferring them to a third party, NCBI Director David Lipman notes that PMC has actually detected data-tagging errors in some of the files con­ tributed by publishers. The result has been enhanced quality of the papers at both the publisher’s and the PMC site.7 In recognition of the possible effect that viewing an article on a third-party site could have on advertising revenues, PMC recently announced a new policy that would encour­ age publishers to submit their content but would protect their financial interests. The PMC would integrate the content into the PMC site for purposes of searching, linking, and archiving, but would pass the user on to the publisher’s site for the full text of the article. PMC reserves the right to make the content available through PMC for free if the pub­ lisher does not do so on its own site within a year of publication, although six months is preferred.“ According to the PLoS, “This pro­ posal … provides a good test of the pub­ lishers’ real intentions.”9 How libraries can contribute to PLoS success To allay the financial fears of the societies, PLoS cites the examples of PNAS and Mo­ C&RL N ew s ■ Ju ly / A u g u s t 2001 / 709 lecular Biology o f the Cell, both of which make their articles available on PMC two months after publication. After a year, neither title has lost subscriptions.10 However, this is an area in which librarians can make an impor­ tant contribution to the success of the PLoS movement. Libraries could reduce the risk for societies by pledging to continue to sub­ scribe to society titles that make their con­ tent available for free after six months and keep their prices at reasonable levels. Libraries can also help in a number of other ways. First, find out who on your cam­ pus has already signed the open letter. Names and institutions are available on the PLoS Web site. Talk with these faculty, listen to their rationale, and encourage them to talk with others in their departments. Second, provide the entire biomedical and life sciences fac­ ulty with information on the PLoS and issues in scholarly communication. Provide the names of their colleagues who have signed the letter and may be willing to discuss it with them. Third, be prepared to provide or suggest alternative venues for faculty to publish in as of September 1. If publishers believe faculty have no other options, they have no real in­ centive to change their practices. Publishers can wait until September 1 and see what hap­ pens when 22,700+ scientists suddenly have no where to submit their papers. Although you want to be sure to keep track of the publish­ ers that have joined PMC, they may not be able to absorb all of the new submissions on their own. The leadership group of PLoS rec­ ognizes this dilemma and is in the process of seeking out alternative publishing vehicles. In the meantime, it is important to ex­ plore with your faculty the possibility of set­ ting up independent editorial boards. PMC will accept submissions from such groups as long as three members of the board are currently principal investigators on research grants from major funding agencies. The li­ brary could play an important role in sup­ porting the formation of such new “journals” and providing technical support and infra­ structure. Another important action the library can take is to cancel titles that do not agree to support the goals of the PLoS. If your fac­ ulty have signed the open letter and alter­ native journals are launched, it is time to Publishers can w a it until Septem ber 1 and see w h at happens w hen 22,700+ scien tists suddenly have no w h e re to subm it th eir papers. cancel those that choose to ignore the inter­ ests of the scientists they are intended to serve. For years, librarians have worked to en­ gage faculty in discussing the issues of, and exploring possible solutions to, the scholarly communication crisis. Although there may be disagreements with the precepts of PLoS, the lifesciences community has clearly signaled what it desires in a system of scholarly com­ munication: peer review, free public access, timeliness, flexible searching and extensive linking, and assured archiving. The PloS is a challenging new approach to the crisis in scholarly communication and deserves the library community’s attention and support. Notes 1. This statistic is accurate as of May 21, 2001. 2. Available online at h ttp ://w w w . publiclibraryofscience.org. 3. Michael Eisen and Pat Brown, “Should the Scientific Literature Be Privately Owned and Controlled?” Nature Webdebates. Avail­ able online at http://www.nature.com/nature/ debates/e-access/Articles/Eisen.htm. 4. “E-BIOMED: A Proposal for Electronic Publications in the Biomedical Sciences,” May 5, 1999 (DRAFT) and June 20, 1999 (ADDEN­ DUM). Available online at http://www.nih. gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/53ebio.htm. 5. Ibid. 6. In a response to PLoS, the editors of Science stated that they would make original research reports published in Science avail­ able for free after a year on their own Web site. “Is a Government Archive the Best Op­ tion?” Science, March 23, 2001: 2319. 7. Julia Karow, “Publish Free or Perish: Life Scientists Are Urging Publishers to Grant Free Access to Archived Research Articles,” Scientific American, April 23, 2001. Available (continued on page 716) http://www http://www.nature.com/nature/ http://www.nih 716 / C&RL News ■ July/August 2001 These sites are som etim es seen as competition for reference librarians, but they need not be. is someone calling him- or herself “Count Fathom.” “I can wait, I can fast, and I can think,” Count Fathom tells us. No doubt. • Knowpost (http://www.knowpost.com) calls itself a community. Rather than contact a particular expert, you post a question to a board, and someone may answer it. There are no expert listings as in some other services. However, in addition to random questions and answers in any particular category, Knowpost experts can offer “HowTos,” which cost not money but points to view. “Points are the cur­ rency of KnowPost. You are given 25 points when you register at KnowPost and you can earn more points by answering questions and posting HowTos.” For three points you can learn how to “Support the lunchmeat revolu­ tion,” and for two points you can “Experience philanthropy firsthand and make the world a better place.” It seems a small price to pay. • WHQuestion (http://WHQuestion.com) claims it is “the ultimate tool for acquiring knowledge on the Internet.” With this tool, you post random questions and sometimes get them answered by people browsing through the fresh questions page. They play up the fact that a lot of the answers you can get here are not available on the Web or in books, because they are in people’s heads. • Askme (http://www.askme.com/) allows you to post a question to a general topic bulletin board, or target a specific expert and ask that person a question. Like the other sites where you can ask questions of specific experts, the range of expertise varies. How­ ever, you can usually tell enough about the experts to determine their competence. I’m registered as an expert in politics (qualifica­ tion: I read a lot), and every day I get an e- mail directing me to new questions on the politics board. The questions vary widely, in­ cluding many that look as if they were taken from a political science exam, but often they receive good answers. Conclusion The expert services are divided into pay and free services, and the free services are fur­ ther divided into sites that require some sort of qualification and those on which anyone can register as an expert. They also range from sites at which you target a specific ex­ pert to those where you randomly post a question and randomly receive a response. The qualifications of experts vary, but one can often sift through the chaff to get the wheat, and in my experience, many experts try to answer questions quickly and correctly. From an academic librarian's perspective, it’s hard not to laugh at some of the experts, but these services use the Web to do what it does best—connect people. The free expert services that allow anyone to register take advantage of the knowledge dispersed throughout the online community. Sure, it’s hard sometimes to know which expert to turn to, or how to evaluate your information, but the same can be said of traditional library reference service. We must remember how these services work and how to use them for our benefit. If we are to compete with and criticize them, we need to know what they do and don’t do well. We should also try to figure out what librarians can learn from these services. What do we like? What should we imitate? What do we definitely want to avoid? And if we direct library users to them, we should be ready to discuss whether they are pay or free, how they identify their experts, how we can evaluate the experts and their information, and what sorts of questions they may answer. These sites are sometimes seen as com­ petition for reference librarians, but they need not be. However, we have to know what they do to know what we do better. ■ ( “Public access . . cont. from page 709) online at http://www.scientificamerican.com/ explorations/2001/042301publish/. 8. “New Option to Display Full Text at a Journal Site Only.” Available online at http:/ /www. pubmedcentral. nih. gov/about/ newoption.html. 9. Public Library of Science, “Response to Science Magazine’s Statement Regarding this Initiative.” Available online at http://www. publiclibraryofscience.org/plosScienceRep. htm. 10. Ibid. ■ http://www.knowpost.com http://WHQuestion.com http://www.askme.com/ http://www.scientificamerican.com/ http://www