Science crowdfunding changes the equation by adding a powerful new incentive for scientists to engage the public with science: the potential for raising money for research directly from the public. What makes crowdfunding such a powerful potential lever to connect science and society is that the amount of money that can be raised in this way is directly proportional to the size of the audience that has been built.
Open-access publication is not always about making publicly funded research articles freely available (Nature495, 425; 2013). Other factors could be driving the boom in open-access publishing in scientifically emerging nations.
To read this article you have to be registered or buy it for 16€.
This article refers to the conference “Science as an Open Enterprise: Open Data for Open Science,” held at FAPESP’s headquarters in São Paulo. , Philip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature magazine, chemist Martyn Poliakoff (Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society); and the FAPESP’s Scientific Director, Carlos Henrique de Brito Cruz talked.
Campbell went to explain, “The literature is published in many different scientific magazines, and if they are closed, it is impossible for any researcher to find them with ease. Since we need people from all disciplines and from several places working on climate change, it seems reasonable to make data open.”
Tied into the varying costs of journals is the number of articles that they reject. PLoS ONE (which charges authors $1,350) publishes 70% of submitted articles, whereas Physical Review Letters (a hybrid journal that has an optional open-access charge of $2,700) publishes fewer than 35%;Nature published just 8% in 2011.
So, harmonization is happening. But the development of seamless policies among funders needs to be the focus of advocacy. It will mean less author confusion and greater compliance. Authors will begin to understand the potential of truly open research and be inspired to devise further innovative practices. Then we can expect true disruption: a very different kind of scholarly communication, catalysed by good policy.
For all the differences, the fates of Nature and Frontiers have become intertwined. On February 27th Nature Publishing Group (NPG), which owns Nature and 81 other scholarly journals, announced that it has bought a controlling stake in Frontiers for an undisclosed sum. Besides 30 titles in 14 scientific fields the Swiss upstart brings a social-networking platform—a LinkedIn for boffins, if you like—to share not just research, but news, job offers, information about conferences and events. It currently boasts around 80,000 members.
In many parts of the world, anyone wishing to re-use papers must get permission from the copyright owner (usually either the publisher or the author). Often, the owner will forbid re-use or demand payment. Supporters of open access argue that free papers should come with licences attached, making it clear what kinds of re-use are allowed.
Any referee who, in a given year, has refereed three or more papers for any of the journals will receive a letter acknowledging their contribution and a free subscription to their choice of one of the journals. More importantly, we have recently introduced a system by which our referees can download a statement of the number of papers they have refereed for us. This report is available by logging into the ‘My Account’ page on any Nature journal’s manuscript submission and tracking system and reflects the refereeing activity across all Nature journals.
“The majority of cases exposed are plagiarism, the exaggeration of academic credentials and faked research papers, which are endemic in China.” says Shi-min Fang in an interview refering to the question if dubious claims would be a big problem in China.