Word: plos
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 2006-2006
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...brings.The hermetic process of traditional peer-review does little to facilitate free intellectual dissemination. Scientific manuscripts are typically reviewed by a small number of anonymous experts, who have a throttlehold on whom and what deserves attention. In October 2000, three concerned biomedical scientists founded the Public Library of Science (PLoS), calling on fellow scientists to boycott journals that refused to make full-text papers part of the public domain within six months of publication. Yet although some scientific publishers conformed to the PLoS’s policy guidelines, most remained unresponsive.Undeterred, PLoS continued its dedication to the principle of open...
...editors: Re: “Keep Science in Print,” editorial, Oct. 5. As a Harvard graduate and co-founder of the Public Library of Science (PLoS), I was appalled by your editorial, “Keep Science in Print” in which you condemn our new journal PLoS One. The article is too ill-informed and riddled with factual inaccuracies to be taken seriously as an attack on our efforts to rejuvenate peer review by opening up the process to all members of the scientific community. I would normally feel compelled to correct all these errors...
...these gatekeepers, some think, have far too much power over the progress of science. For these reasons, some in the scientific community have proposed switching to open-publication, online journals. In one model, used by the soon-to-launch online journal of the non-profit Public Library of Science (PLoS), scientists will be able to publish their papers online for a fee after only nominal editing by the journal’s editors. The review process would take place online and post-publication. Only in this case, anyone, not just the author’s scientific peers, would be able...