ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 134 / C&RL News ■ March 2004 SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION The Public Library of Science Open access from the ground up by Helen J. Doyle Despite the recent spike in press coverage, conference symposia, and electronic list discussions dedicated to the subject, open-ac cess publishing is not a new concept or a na­ scent revolution. Both the idea and the prac­ tice o f providing free access to scholarly lit­ erature in widely available; searchable archives have a long, rich history.1 In a sense then, the current spate of international interest in open access might be seen as a n um ber of parallel movements, which are converging and gather­ ing momentum due to a variety of forces, both internal and external to the scholarly publish­ ing system. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a relatively new player on the open access scene, is one piece of a dynamic and com plex land­ scape of organizations, policies, beliefs, myths, constraints, and ideals about open access and scholarly publishing. As an open-access p u b ­ lisher and advocacy organization, PLoS is stead­ fast in its commitment to making the scientific and medical literature a public resource, so that anyone w ith access to the Internet can read and use the scientific discoveries that are gen­ erated through research largely fu n d ed with public monies. PLoS is also unw avering in its belief that such a system will better serve the scientific community, the public, agencies that fund re­ search, universities and research institutions, and ultimately, the scholarly publishers them­ selves (though not perhaps with the profit lev­ els enjoyed by some commercial publishers). M oreover, it seem s to us that there is am ple m oney in the current system o f scientific re­ search and publishing for open access journals to thrive in a healthy, competitive publishing market, and that analysis guides our working business model. A b etter w a y to sh are inform ation PLoS began as a grassroots movement within the scientific community, led initially by Nobel Lau­ reate Harold Varmus, who as director of the Na­ tional Institutes of Health (NIH) envisioned a better way to publish, disseminate, share, and use scientific discoveries. Varmus’ vision was stimu­ lated in part by the public data-sharing within the Human Genome Project, but also by the simulta­ neous explosion in biomedical information, the speed at which basic research was being commer­ cialized, the globalization of science, and the grow­ ing demand by the public for information. “PubMed Central,” the digital archive of the life sciences literature (in its full text, rather than merely abstracted version)—managed by the Na­ tional Library of Medicine—was the first prod­ uct of this vision.2 All of these trends w ere, of course, made possible by the rise of the Internet as the dominant way people disseminate and ac­ cess information.3 About the author Helen J. Doyle is director o f development and strategic alliances at the Public Library o f Science, e-mail: hdoyle@plos.org ©2004 Helen J. Doyle mailto:hdoyle@plos.org C&RL News ■ March 2004 / 135 As a grassroots movement, PLoS aimed to catalyze change by urging individual scientists to take back control of their scholarly work by boycotting high-priced, pay-for-access journals; by stepping dow n from editorial boards; and by refusing to submit or to review papers for such journals. Betw een N ovem ber 2000 and Septem ber 2001, more than 30,000 scientists throughout the w orld signed the PLoS O pen Letter w hich stated in part: We support the establishment of an online public library that w ould provide the full co n ten ts o f th e p u b lis h ed reco rd o f re ­ search and scholarly discourse in medicine and the life sciences in a freely accessible, fully searchable, interlinked form. Estab­ lishment of this public library would vastly increase the accessibility and utility o f the scientific literature, enhance scientific pro­ ductivity, and catalyze integration o f the disparate communities o f know ledge and ideas in biomedical sciences.4 As su p p o rt for the intention o f the O pen Letter suggests, the m ovem ent towards open access in scientific publishing w as gathering m om entum , even if the boycott o f com m er­ cial journals itself did not succeed. PLoS co­ founders Patrick Brown (Stanford) and Michael Eisen (U niversity o f C alifornia-Berkeley) joined Varmus in setting ou t to prove that a top-tier, high-quality journal could turn the existing subscription m odel upside dow n by charging a reasonable fee to cover the cost of publication o n the front end bu t keeping the journal free to all readers via the Internet on the back end. Thus, with start-up funding from the G ordon and Betty Moore Foundation and with an experienced editorial and production staff o n board, PLoS became a nonprofit p u b ­ lisher at the en d o f 2002.5 PLoS was not the first to challenge the pay- for-access scientific publishing community di­ rectly. BioMedCentral began publishing open access journals in 2000, and now publishes more than 100 journals primarily in the biomedical sciences.6 The library community, w hich has b een victimized in recent years by the unprec­ edented confluence o f skyrocketing subscrip­ tion costs and decreasing budgets, has been a vocal advocate for a different system of schol­ arly communication, through organizations like SPARC, w h ich w as fo u n d ed in 1998.7 Mem­ bers of the public, and groups representing the public’s interest, such as voluntary health agencies and public advocacy groups (including the NIH’s Council of Public Representatives), have been championing the public’s right to access informa­ tion for a number of years.8 The landscape into which PLoS emerged as an open-access publisher at the end of 2002 was primed to be transformed. PLoS Biology The first issue of PLoS Biology launched in Oc­ tober 2003 to a torrent of attention from the scientific and popular media.9 As any publisher knows, however, the first issue of a journal— which usually has a generous editorial and pro­ duction lead time—matters less for its long­ term sustainability than do issues that follow, which cement its reputation among readers. And, in fact, PLoS Biology must be more than a solid scientific journal; it must prove that a new open-access journal can generate top- notch papers, be supported by excellent re­ viewers, develop a following among diverse and discerning readers, a n d become a sustain­ able business. The early measures of PLoS Biology’s success are positive. Submissions to the journal are in­ creasing steadily, and the papers published are cov­ ering significant new advances of the biological sciences. A handful of papers are generating the type of press coverage that only a small portion of the published literature ever receives.10 The num ber o f visitors to the PLoS Biology Web site is ro b u st—th e n u m b e r o f full-text d ow n lo ad s of individual articles, including synopses and other front section pieces and research articles, w as over 60,000 in January 2004. And w hat visitors are choosing to dow n­ load is giving us interesting feedback on our content and on our readers. The front section of PLoS B iology includes features, review s, “journal clubs,” and essays that are intended to appeal broadly to scientists and to the public. Perhaps not surprisingly, these articles are down­ loaded more frequently than the average re­ search article; titles from the PLoS Biology top ten list in early February such as “Economy of the Mind,” “Science on the Rise in Developing Countries,” “Comparative Genomics,’’ and “In Methuselah’s Mould,” clearly appeal to a gen­ eral authence.11 These preliminary data speak well to PLoS Biology’s reception within the scientific com­ munity. We hope PLoS M edicine and other PLoS 136 / C&RL N ew s ■ March 2004 journals so o n to follow m eet w ith similar e n ­ th u siasm fro m th e co m m u n ities th e y w ill draw from and target. And o n an international level, o p en access continues to gain m om en­ tu m am o n g re se a rc h fu n d in g ag en cies an d policy-makers, with major new announcements o f support released nearly every m onth.12 In o rd er to catalyze a g enuinely systemic shift in th e w ay th a t scientific k n o w led g e is disseminated, however, scientists representing multiple disciplines, nationalities, institutions, and ages must continue to voice their commit­ ment to open-access publishing. Individual sci­ entists can take action by subm itting an d re­ viewing papers, joining editorial boards, advo­ cating o n th eir cam puses, an d cham pioning open-access publications. We should be inspired by the existing ex­ am ples o f activism w ithin the scientific com ­ munity against the stranglehold that many pay- for-access publishers have on scientists’ schol­ arly work. For example, the Chronicle o f H igher E ducation reported recently that: Zvi Galil, (an ed ito r o f th e J o u r n a l o f A lg o rith m s) an d d e a n o f th e school of engineering an d applied science at Co­ lumbia University, said that Elsevier had increased the subscription rates unneces­ sarily, because production costs for the journal had not risen recently. ‘Basically, w e do all the w o rk ,’ Mr. Galil said, ‘and the com pany m akes all the profit.’13 A nd w ith in th e U niversity o f California (UC) system , th e v o ices o f fru strated scien ­ tists provided im portant reinforcem ent to the negotiating position of the UC California Digi­ tal Library w ith Reed Elsevier :14 ‘It is untenable that a publisher w ould de facto block access o f our published work even to our immediate colleagues,’ the let­ ter states. ‘Cell Press is b reak in g an u n ­ w ritten contract w ith the scientific com ­ munity. Being a publisher o f our research carries the responsibility to make our con­ tributions publicly available at reasonable rates. As an academic community, it is time that w e reassert our values,’ adds the let­ ter, w hich claims that Cell Press ‘values profit above its academic mission.’15 (c o n tin u e d o n p a g e 152) 1 5 2 / C&RL News ■ M arch 2004 mocracy—public, academic, school, special, gov­ ernmental, and national libraries all contribute, each in their own way, to that bedrock. “Big ALA” and its divisions need to work to­ gether more than they do now. As a former divi­ sional president, I have a number of ideas on how that can be accomplished, but they must be pre­ ceded by the fostering of a climate of enhanced trust, mutual understanding, and cooperation. Stripling: All types of libraries rest on the fundamental values of equity, diversity, intellec­ tual and physical access, intellectual freedom, and public participation in the interchange of ideas. By stronger collaboration and connections through ALA offices, an ALA President can overcome the “silo-ization” often seen in ALA. I will provide more opportunities for divisions to work together on common concerns, particularly 21st-century literacy, advocacy, continuing education, technol­ ogy, salaries, service to youth and special popula­ tions, and recruitment. During 2004, ALA leaders will start the pro­ cess of developing another five-year action plan. I will ensure that we develop strong collaborative structures to implement the plan. 7. At the close o f your term, w hich legacy w o u ld y o u lik e y o u r P resid en cy to b e re­ membered for? ( “The Public Librarγ …”continued from page 136) Voices like these, those that join them, and the actions they generate will ultimately pro­ vide the final momentum needed to complete the transition to a robust, equitable, and sus­ tainable open-access publishing system. Notes 1. See, for example, Peter Suber’s Timeline o f the O pen Access Movement. 2. PubMed Central, w w w .pubm edcentral. g o v /ab o u t/in tro .html. 3. “A m erica’s On-Line P u rsu its,” Pew Internet and American Life Project, December 2003. 4. PLos O pen Letter, w w w .plos.org/sup port/openletter.shtm l. 5. Patrick O. Brown, Michael B. Eisen, and Harold E. Varmus, “Why PLoS Became a Pub­ lisher,” PLoS Biology 1, no. 1 (2003). 6. BioMedCentral, w w w .biom edcentral. com /hom e/. 7. SPARC, w w w .arl.o rg /sp arc/. Gorman: I w ould like to be remembered as an ALA leader w ho had a vision of libraries and librarianship that reconciled our traditional core values and services with the enthusiastic em brace o f innovation—technological and otherw ise— and gave all librarians and ALA members reason to be hopeful about their in­ dividual and our collective future. Stripling: I would like to leave a legacy of community building. I will cham pion library efforts to build com m unity at the local level and use those success stories to spread the word among legislators, policy makers, and the gen­ eral public about the positive impact of librar­ ies. I will showcase the extraordinary w ork of academic libraries in building both informa­ tion and learning communities. I will also build community within ALA by improving the open­ ness and inclusiveness of the association for all library w orkers and by establishing more cross-association collaboration. I will help li­ brarians across the country to value ALA and react the way one gentleman did after reading o n e o f m y W eb s it e b lo g s (w w w . barbstripling.net): “Now this is most interest­ ing—an ALA presidential candidate blog. Is it time for me to renew my ALA membership?” The answer is most definitely, “Yes!” 8. “A Recommendation from the Council of P u b lic R e p re se n ta tiv e s,” c o p r .n ih .g o v / public_library_science.shtm. 9. See references collected a twww.plos.org/ news/pr_2003_plos.html. 10. S ee r e f e r e n c e s c o l l e c t e d a t www. plos.org/news/index.html#science. 11. See www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/ ?request=index-html. 12. See for exam ple w w w .earlh am .ed u / ~ p eters/fo s/tim elin e.h tm , w w w .p lo s.o rg / about/oρenaccess.htm l#tim eline, and refer­ ences therein. 13. Chronicle o f Highei Education, February 9, 2004 on the departure of the Board o f Di­ rectors of the Journal o f Algorithms from Reed Elsevier 14. Stephanie Kirchgaessner, “Companies UK: Love Affair w ith Reed Begins to Cool,” Financial Times, February 9, 2004. 15. From a letter to UCSF faculty urging a b oy co tt o f Cell Press from Professors Peter Walter and Keith Yamamoto http://www.pubmedcentral http://www.plos.org/sup- http://www.biomedcentral http://www.arl.org/sparc/ http://www.plos.org/ http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/ http://www.earlham.edu/ http://www.plos.org/