Recently, a few interesting articles have appeared debating the future of scientific publishing and the impact of open access publishing. Both Nature and New England Journal of Medicine have devoted issues to open access and the future of scholarly publishing, airing viewpoints on both sides of the debate regarding how open scientific publishing should be. A selection of those articles are noted here.
In Nature, March 28, 2013:
Disciplinary action: How scientists share and reuse information is driven by technology but shaped by discipline, Nature, DOI:10.1038/495409b
Open access: The true cost of science publishing, Richard Van Noorden, Nature, 426–429; DOI:10.1038/495426a
Licence restrictions: A fool’s errand, John Wilbanks, Nature, 28 March 2013; 495: 440-441; DOI:10.1038/495440a
In New England Journal of Medicine, February 28, 2013
For the Sake of Inquiry and Knowledge — The Inevitability of Open Access, Ann J. Wolpert, M.L.S., N Engl J Med 2013; 368:785-787; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1211410
Open but Not Free — Publishing in the 21st Century, Martin Frank, Ph.D., N Engl J Med 2013; 368:787-789; DOI: 10.1056/NEJMp1211259