New Science Editor Skeptical of Open Access Publishing
New Science Editor Skeptical of Open Access Publishing | Wired Science from Wired.com
The august journal, Science, announced today that they've found a new editor-in-chief after an extended search. University of California at San Francisco biochemist, Bruce Alberts, pictured at right, will assume the top spot in March 2008.
Alberts will replace Donald Kennedy, who has held the top editorial spot at since June of 2000.
To gain some insight into the direction Alberts might take the journal, we went back to an interview he gave Science deputy news editor, Jeffrey Mervis, back in 2005 after stepping down as head of the US National Academy of Sciences.
I even paid $10 for it, which reminded me how bizarre it is that open-access is not a standard practice for these journals. Is Alberts going to change that? The short answer is, "Don't bet on it."
As he told Mervis, on the topic of open access:
I think that the community should push for access to scientific information as quickly as possible. We tried [with the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences] to see how short we could make it. We actually tried only a 2-month delay. But the next year a number of librarians told us that they would wait the 2 months and not subscribe, saving the money for other journals. And so with regrets, our publication committee decided to let it slip to 6 months.... for scientists in the countries that can afford it--U.S. and Europe and Japan--we ask them to pay.
Also germane to science publishing, Alberts spoke about wanting a way for mentor-scientists to get credit for their contributions without putting their names on younger scientists' papers. This seems like an area where he could spur innovation from his new position/soapbox.
We can't maintain an innovative system unless the old scientists become mentors and make way for the next generation. How do I get credit for this? I was president of the academy, so I don't need the credit. The worse way is to put your name on their paper. But why can't there be a second way, that also goes into the database, for people who really helped make things happen?
How would you like to see Science change with a new man at the helm?
New Science Editor Skeptical of Open Access Publishing | Wired Science from Wired.com
No comments:
Post a Comment