 |
|
|||
|
No one can say that scientists didn't do anything to change this hard situation.
At 1991, Paul Ginsparg established an Internet server, arxiv.org,
to which physicists could post digital copies of their manuscripts
prior to publication. Not long ago a critical paper "Vital resource
should be open to all physicists. Putting control in the hands of a few
can enforce orthodoxy and stifle innovative ideas." was published at the
Nature " (433, p.800, 2005; paragraph "Correspondence"). This paper was
devoted to the publication policy of the arXiv. Nobel Prize
laureate in the physics Brian D. Josephson (Department of Physics,
University of Cambridge,Cambridge, UK)
is the author of the paper. His paper contains Paul Ginsparg reply to
the criticism of the arxiv.org publication policy (published at the
Nature 432, 428-429; 2004) and Josephson's notes. It was reported that
Paul Ginsparg said that "archive is designed for communication among
research professionals, not as a mechanism
for outsiders to communicate to that
community". Professor Josephson think that rejection of the papers of
some scientists is deliberate violation of the rights of other
scientists. He stated that deliberate rejection (by means of arXiv
moderator) of the papers of some distinguished physicist take
place at the server arXiv, because they "was not intimately familiar
with the work in question". Professor Josephson believes that
"Radical changes are required in the way the archive is
administered.". The members of our initiative group think that the
present policy of the arXiv server cheapened all positive initiatives
underlying in the server development. In the accordance to the "logic"
of the Mr. Paul Ginsparg any, even most famous, scientist (like
Einstein) have not possibility to publish their papers in the
server, because they aren't the members of the closed community arXiv.org.
We'd like to say to the server leaders the following words: "Dear
colleagues, you just become presumptuous and you must think over your
behaviour". Our caricature, concerned with the policy of the arXiv.org server you can find in the picture. Thus, one can't say about the possibility of the free papers publications at the arXiv server now.
At 1996, the
World Conference "Science for the Twenty-first Century: A New
Commitment" took place in Budapest under the aegis of the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the
International Council for Science (ICSU). In this Conference Declaration
it was indicated that: "Most of the benefits of science are unevenly
distributed, as a result of structural asymmetries among countries,
regions and social groups, and between the sexes. As scientific
knowledge has become a crucial factor in the production of wealth, so
its distribution has become more inequitable. What distinguishes the
poor (be it people or countries) from the rich is not only that they
have fewer assets, but also that they are largely excluded from the
creation and the benefits of scientific knowledge.". The Conference
participants recommended "The building of scientific capacity should be
supported by regional and international cooperation, to ensure both
equitable development and the spread and utilization of human creativity
without discrimination of any kind against countries, groups or
individuals. Cooperation between developed and developing countries
should be carried out in conformity with the principles of full and open
access to information, equity and mutual benefit. Progress in science
requires various types of cooperation at and between the
intergovernmental, governmental and non-governmental levels, such as:
research networks; .. programmes to facilitate the exchange of
knowledge; .. The use of information and communication technology,
particularly through networking, should be expanded as a means of
promoting the free flow of knowledge".
In 1999, Dr. Harold
Varmus, then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH),
presented an ambitious proposal for NIH to develop and operate an
electronic publishing site that would provide barrier-free access to the
peer-reviewed and pre-peer-reviewed life sciences literature. The plan
evolved considerably in a year of vigorous public discussion. The
result, PubMed Central (PMC), was launched in February 2000 with content
from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Molecular
Biology of the Cell. To allay publishers' concerns about lost revenues,
participating publishers were not required to deposit material
immediately upon publication, with most opting for a delay of between
six months and a year. Despite these allowances, few journals followed
PNAS and MBC in joining PMC. Many publishers expressed opposition to the
venture, and lobbying efforts were initiated to have PMC funding cut
off.
The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a
coalition of research scientists dedicated to making the world's
scientific and medical literature a public resource, was founded in
October 2000. Our first action was to encourage scientific publishers to
make the archival scientific research literature available for
distribution through free online public libraries of science. We
circulated an open letter calling on scientific publishers to make the
primary research articles they publish available through online public
libraries of science such as PubMed Central. The open letter was signed
by nearly 34,000 scientists from 180 countries.
This initiative was progressive and
useful for all scientific community, undoubtedly. Only 7 usual and
electronic scientific journals responded to aforesaid call to April
2001. Many publishers categorically don't want to share their
information and send it to another site even if they make it public (on
their site) after some time. Publishers were confused. They understood
that their journals circulations will decrease if such archive start to
work (some scientists think that it isn't true). Journals "Nature" and
"Science" organized electronic discussions at their sites. Some
publishers think to change their work model: take money from authors,
but not from readers. Unfortunately, we must to establish the fact that
PLos decided to take money from the papers authors. In the PLoS
official information, located at the page "Frequently Asked Questions" (http://www.plos.org/faq.html)
at the answer, concerned with a question "Why should I have to pay to
publish my paper?" it is indicated that: "It costs money to
produce a peer-reviewed, edited, and formatted article that is ready for
online publication, and to host it on a server that is accessible
around the clock. Prior to that, a public or private funding agency has
already paid a great deal more money for the research to be undertaken
in the interest of the public. This real cost of "producing" a paper can
be calculated by dividing your laboratory's annual budget by the number
of papers published. We ask that--as a small part of the cost of doing
the research--the author, institution, or funding agency pays a modest
fee, $1500, to help cover the actual cost of the essential final step,
the publication. (As it stands, authors now often pay for publication in
the form of page or color charges.) Endorsing the view that biomedical
research should published in a manner that is accessible without
barriers, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute has committed to
supplementing publication costs (of up to US$3000 per year) for the
scientists whose work it funds, so long as the work is published in an
open-access journal."
We can estimate the preparedness of
the PLoS organizers to accept (without any fee) papers if authors have
not possibility to pay publishing fees (see http://www.plos.org/faq.html
answer to the question "What if I can't afford publication charges?"),
but we believe that both papers publication and their access must be
free for anyone. The possibility of such "impossible" variant of
events is described at our proposals.
We sincerely pity that such grandiose
project (that organizers were supported by big number of scientists) had
such finish, that wasn't expected by scientists.
From finish of 20
age to now, big number of different Internet sites were created. These
sites give different services to all peoples (papers publication, free
access to scientific papers). We must agree that some time such
publications are blunt forgeries. However, there are big number really
interesting, progressive papers. Shoots of new, progressive and
democratic science carve its way. Unfortunately they are disconnected
yet. The problem consist, also, in the fact that leaders of so called
"official science" don't consider all independent scientific online
publications as scientific publications. The "official science"
bureaucrats think that the have the exclusive right on the scientific
truth. Such position is simply ridiculous. All such facts can be
laughable if they were not sorrowful. The "official science" bureaucrats
vastly impede the scientific and social progress by means of their
"scientific" degrees, high positions and links in government
fields. They force all scientists to publish their papers in
journals controlled by them (bureaucrats), because they (bureaucrats)
don't want consider independent online scientific papers as scientific
papers. It is the way to save bureaucrats leading positions at the
"official science". It is the way, also, to support (by means of money)
commercial "scientific" publishers which take a lot of money from
readers and scientists and which hamper to the free publications of
scientific papers and to the free access to the scientific information.
One kind of evil supports another kind of evil. The backstage conspiracy
between so called "scientific elite" and "scientific" publishers takes
place. Now these peoples continue to support such conditions that
are useful for them only. By means of their efforts the present
situation in the "official science" resembles medieval obscurantism (at
the inquisition age) and total depression. They understand the
inefficiency of their system and try to reform it without any
consequences for themselves. Such efforts are completely hopeless and
doomed to the failure. The present "reform" of the system of science and
education in Russia is the excellent example of such "reform". Other
aforesaid "initiatives", resulting to the creating of the completely
closed scientific communities and to the taking money from the
scientists (for their papers publication) are the other examples of such
"reform". The "official science" fate is predetermined. Now, it is
decomposing (poisoning all around itself) cadaver.
It is clear, that the events,
described here show only one side of the problem. We live at the age of
computer technology and Internet. It is impossible to stop scientific
progress. The world begins to understand the necessity of the changes.
We call publishers revise their points in accordance with the demands of
the modern times. The times when publishers can to dictate their will
to scientists become a thing of the past. Nobody have the right to
appropriate to himself (and hide) the search data, obtained by
scientists generations. Publishers must understand this fact. Some
publishers have begin open (for some time, yet) full texts of their
journals for all readers in Internet. It is positive act. The time
become to make next step in this direction. We all want to see the
results of progressive changes during our life. We can precipitate this
process.
|
|||
|
|
|||
