New York Times "Science Times" continues its focus on scientific publishing and open access

By Steven T. Corneliussen

As reported earlier, a recent New York Times "Science Times" feature offered thoughtful future-mindedness concerning scientific communication and collaboration in the internet age. Now two "Science Times" letters have continued that high-visibility public discussion.

The first letter comes from Jeffrey M. Drazen, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. As reported earlier, Drazen also recently published a closely related letter on the Times's opinion page. This time Drazen asserts that concerning the question of whether "scientific publishing should be open and free," it's vital "to make a critical distinction between scientific and medical publishing." He continues:

If a scientific theory is wrong, time and money may be wasted, but no one's health is put at risk. By contrast, if published health information is wrong or flawed, serious injury can occur.

We frequently receive manuscripts in which people promote ideas and theories without adequate data, usually in pursuit of personal fame or monetary gain. Although the peer-reviewed medical literature is not without flaws, there is no better way than peer review to vet information before it is used in the diagnosis and treatment of disease. At least in medicine, we should think carefully before we decide that more, unfiltered information is better information.

The second letter defends "the traditional science publishing model" against the charge that it "is outdated and creates an unfair situation wherein taxpayers pay twice for the research: first to finance it, and a second time to access it." The writer offers a proposal:

One solution may be a hybrid model, with an expensive "gold-plated" publication representing good research impeccably presented alongside lesser, relatively unedited works, freely or cheaply available. Research will be easily accessible to the public, but the market will continue to direct those truly interested to subsidize great research via subscriptions.

---

Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA's history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.