 Freedom of Information Conference 2000
Harold Varmus
Memorial Sloan-Kettering
Cancer Center
Ushering in a new age of scientific publishing
We
should experiment with a range of open access models
The sciences
are undergoing a fundamental and difficult transition---from a mode of
publication that has reigned for the 335 years since the printing of the
first scientific journals to a new mode made possible by computer science
and the Internet. This transition is going to occur within the next decade
or two, and it is now important for both scientists and publishers to
influence its pace and its form. We need to assess the current state of
the transition and recommend any corrective actions, just as if we were
sailing towards a known goal and required to check our bearings and tighten
the sails from time to time.
The desired
properties of scientific publishing---accessibility, economy, quality,
innovation, and retrieval---seem obvious, and it seems equally obvious
that most or all of these properties can be more readily achieved with
electronic methods. Nevertheless, there remain significant differences
of opinion about the range and limits to access, the ways in which costs
should be distributed, the means for enhancing quality through commentary
and reviewing, the methods available for innovation, and the best programs
for storage and retrieval.
Some fundamental
principles
I believe that the debate must take into consideration some fundamental
principles that are sometimes overlooked. First, scientists differ from
other sorts of writers, especially when we are describing the results
of our own research efforts: we are not paid---and are not interested
in being paid---for writing these reports. We simply want the largest
possible audience to have the greatest possible access to them. And those
who have paid for the costs of our research---the public, foundations,
governments---feel the same way. Second, we need to recognize the power
of new methods of publication to democratize science and to incorporate
disenfranchised investigators, especially those in developing countries,
into the scientific community. Third, the use of the Internet to distribute
scientific findings does not necessarily mean unregulated dissemination
of material or loss of valuable hierarchies. Adulteration of reliable
information with junk has occurred on the Internet in several fields,
but it is not difficult to develop reliable filters that maintain standards
for critical review, to credential contributors and overseers, and to
label materials with the criteria employed for inclusion.
What should
we be doing now?
Such principles should stiffen resolve to sail to the ultimate goals of
scientific publishing, but the navigational route has yet to be firmly
established. I recommend eight short -term activities to help chart that
route.
- Test completely
open access by placing several journals, including at least a few important
ones, in PubMedCentral, the distribution system recently started by
the National Institutes of Health.
- Collect
data from such experiments to better define the technical and financial
consequences of unfettered electronic distribution and thereby allow
more solid proposals for operation of a large system.
- Start
some electronic journals, preferably ones carefully edited by high profile
scientists, designed expressly for dissemination through PubMed Central
or similar systems with open access.
- Study
the consequences of such journals on library costs, attitudes toward
electronic publishing, and willingness of authors to publish in them
rather than in established paper journals.
- Begin
to create an extensive, historical archive of biomedical research---an
expensive but ultimately very powerful means to enhance the value of
paper-bound scientific writings.
- Create
some mirror sites for PubMed Central in Europe, Asia, and perhaps other
places, as
a means to insure durability and cohesion of what needs to be a distinctly
international effort.
- Experiment
with limited review procedures---screening rather than traditional reviewing---to
assess the utility and acceptability of distributing information through
a centralized resource (perhaps starting with large data sets, reagent
inventories, or other kinds of information currently available only
on individual laboratory Web sites).
- Keep talking
about these crucial issues by holding meetings, writing opinion pieces,
and seeking support from many constituencies outside the usual sets
of people concerned about science publishing.
Reprise
The profound changes currently underway in scientific publishing are both
exciting and anxiety provoking. It is important to remember, however,
that such changes will not occur instantaneously. Experimentation with
and evaluation of varieties of change will be crucial instruments for
creating a new age of scientific publishing in the best possible way.
Harold
Varmus
President, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
New York City
USA
(varmus@mskcc.org)
Competing
interests: The author is on the Advisory Council of PubMed
Central and the Editorial Directorate of BioMed
Central.
|
