{"id":68,"date":"2011-01-06T15:26:25","date_gmt":"2011-01-06T15:26:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/?p=68"},"modified":"2011-01-06T15:26:25","modified_gmt":"2011-01-06T15:26:25","slug":"natures-new-position-statement-on-open-access","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/2011\/01\/06\/natures-new-position-statement-on-open-access\/","title":{"rendered":"Nature&#8217;s new position statement on open access"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Nature Publishing Group (NPG) have just issued a new <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/press_releases\/statement.html\">position statement on open access<\/a>. It aims to give a useful of the company&#8217;s current activities in open access, and it sets out their policies and viewpoints with respect to open access.<\/p>\n<p>Let&#8217;s face it, &#8220;self-serving press release&#8221; is a tautology. \u00a0The statement\u00a0is a cunning mix of public relations and information. \u00a0 To be fair to them, NPG do have \u00a0liberal policies permitting self-archiving and they have taken some bold steps, like establishing a full-OA journal and a high-level hybrid OA journal. \u00a0Last month they also added OA options to several of their academic journals. NPG have cooperated with UKPubMedCentral too and are working with the EU&#8217;s PEER project, which is looking into the effect of self-archiving on scholarly communication.<\/p>\n<p>At the core of the statement though is NPG&#8217;s self-justifying mantra: \u00a0&#8220;one size does not fit all&#8230; Scholarly communication [is best]\u00a0served by a mix of models&#8221;. \u00a0Hence, when discussing their own high-impact, low-acceptance rate journals NPG say that &#8220;it seems fairer to spread the costs across the large number of readers, rather than the much smaller number of authors&#8221;. \u00a0Note that they say &#8220;it seems&#8221; &#8211; in other words no evidence or rationale is provided, it is just an article of faith at NPG. Despite the recent <a href=\"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/2010\/12\/13\/fees-subscriptions-and-the-messy-business-of-payments\/\">discussion<\/a> about submission charges these are barely mentioned.<\/p>\n<p>It is interesting to note that there is no mention of last year&#8217;s\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/scurry\/2010\/06\/09\/inflation\/\">controversy<\/a> about the price increases <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/press_releases\/cdl.html\">charged<\/a> to the University of California, beyond a veiled statement that &#8220;subscription prices can be controversial&#8221; and an assurance that NPG &#8220;keep prices as low as possible&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>On the other hand, another press release issued yesterday <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/press_releases\/rental.html\">announced<\/a> some new options for accessing NPG content. Articles from some journals are now available on the\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/www.deepdyve.com\/nature\">DeepDyve<\/a> platform (see <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/franknorman\/2009\/11\/10\/not-diving-but-skimming-a-new-source-for-articles\">my post<\/a> for more info about DeepDyve). Low cost access options are also now available on the nature.com iPhone app. Martin Fenner has <a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.plos.org\/mfenner\/2011\/01\/06\/now-in-your-deepdyve-store-nature-papers-to-rent\/?utm_source=feedburner&amp;utm_medium=feed&amp;utm_campaign=Feed:+plos\/blogs\/mfenner+(Blogs+-+Gobbledygook)&amp;utm_content=FaceBook\">welcomed<\/a> both of these options, though takes issue with the pricing.<\/p>\n<p>I was interested to read what the statement says about <em>Nature<\/em> <em>Communications<\/em>, NPG&#8217;s only Nature-branded open access offering:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>It has a higher acceptance rate than other Nature titles, and accepts some manuscripts previously rejected by the Nature research journals (subject to independent editorial review). Along with digital-only publication, this reduces the costs per manuscript published, and so an\u00a0APC\u00a0of $5000 is viable. Nature Communications was born-hybrid, and currently 40% of its content is open access, much higher than most other hybrid open access journals at this time.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>It had always <a href=\"http:\/\/network.nature.com\/groups\/naturepublishinggroup\/forum\/topics\/5574\">struck me <\/a>that <em>Nature Communications<\/em> was an uneasy compromise between high-impact (with the magic <em>Nature<\/em> brand in the title) and high-volume (necessary to keep the article charges reasonable). \u00a0It seemed to go against their mantra that OA is not possible for high-impact journals, and also seemed a tad hypocritical in view of their earlier <a href=\"http:\/\/www.nature.com\/news\/2008\/080702\/full\/454011a.html\">comments<\/a> on\u00a0<em>PLoS ONE<\/em> (see also\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/blogs.nature.com\/wilbanks\/2008\/07\/07\/on-the-plos-nature-business-model-story\">here<\/a> and <a href=\"http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/clock\/2008\/07\/on_the_nature_of_plos.php\">here<\/a>).<\/p>\n<p>The statement ends with its most interesting news, the announcement of another new launch:<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>In 2011,\u00a0NPG\u00a0will expand its open access publishing programme with the launch of Scientific Reports. This will be born-digital, fully open access (with Creative Commons non-commercial licences), with an acceptance rate significantly higher than Nature Communications. Scientific Reports will enjoy all the benefits of the nature.com platform, while offering authors the choice of a highly-affordable open access publishing option.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>This looks very like NPG&#8217;s answer to <em>PLoS ONE<\/em>. I look forward to seeing reactions to this announcement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Nature Publishing Group (NPG) have just issued a new position statement on open access. It aims to give a useful of the company&#8217;s current activities in open access, and it sets out their policies and viewpoints with respect to open &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/2011\/01\/06\/natures-new-position-statement-on-open-access\/\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":17,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-68","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-journal-publishing","category-open-access"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/occamstypewriter.org\/trading-knowledge\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}