This document summarizes the history and evolution of open access scientific publishing, focusing on the role of the Public Library of Science (PLoS). It discusses how PLoS pioneered open access publishing through petitions and journals in 2001. It then covers how PLoS helped establish PubMed Central and advocated for policies like the NIH public access policy. The document outlines PLoS's current experiments with metrics, commenting tools, and other innovations to improve access and reuse of research.

1. From PLoS to PMC and back again
PLoS 2001
The petition
The ASCB
NIH Public Access policy
PubMed Central
PLoS 2011

2. The access problem
T Research
R Teaching
T Physicians
P Patients, advocacy groups
Public Health officials

3. The 2001 Public Library of Science Petition
“…We pledge that, beginning
in September 2001, we will
publish in, edit or review for,
and personally subscribe to only
those scholarly and scientific
journals that have agreed to
grant unrestricted free distribu-
tion rights to any and all original
research reports that they have
published, through PubMed Central and similar online public
resources, within 6 months of their initial publication date”

4. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o m
In 2009, Elsevier reported a
profit of $1.1 billion on total
revenues of $3.2 billion

5. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o m
In 2009, Elsevier reported a
profit of $1.1 billion on total
revenues of $3.2 billion

6. ASCB: Molecular Biology of the Cell
Research articles Published 2010: 362
Institutional subscription price: tiered
pricing, range $450-750
Copyright: Author holds copyright under a
Creative Commons Noncommercial Share
Alike license
Access policy (since 2001):
MBC in Press preprints are freely available
to anyone. Access to MBC Online is by
subscription for two months, then freely
available to anyone. All final articles are
deposited in PubMed Central.
Bottom line, FY10: $350,683

7. How can a 2-month embargo period be sufficient
to protect subscription revenue?
>> Online hits to articles in the January issue are highest in the
first 2-3 months after publication, then drop precipitously

8. ASCB: Advocacy for broader public access
The ASCB supports the proposed NIH policy on Public Access to NIH
Research Information (NOT-OD-04-064) for the following reasons:
1. Barriers to scientific communication slow scientific progress.
2. A comprehensive, searchable database will profoundly enhance scientists’
research productivity.
3. It is fair that taxpayers have access to the research results that they funded.
4. Subscription income will not be adversely affected by the deposit of research
articles in PubMed Central for open access six months following publication.
5. The proposed policy does not preclude publishers from restricting access to
other value-added content that is not the result of NIH-funded research.

9. The NIH Public Access Policy
In accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161
(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public
Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states:
The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all
investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to
the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic
version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for
publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months
after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall
implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with
copyright law.
Compliance with this Policy remains a statutory requirement and a term
and condition of the grant award and cooperative agreement.
→ Made permanent in 2009

10. Why Public Access?
• ACCESS. Provide electronic access to NIH-
funded research publications for patients,
families, health professionals, scientists,
teachers, and students.
• ARCHIVE. Keep a central archive of NIH-
funded research publications—for now and in
the future, preserving vital medical research
results and information for years to come.
• ADVANCE SCIENCE. Create an information
resource that will make it easier for scientists
to mine medical research publications, and
for NIH to manage better its entire research
investment.

11. PLoS 2001
The petition
The ASCB
NIH Public Access policy
PubMed Central
PLoS 2011

12. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available

13. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available
• 500,000+ unique users retrieve 1 million
articles every day
• 79% of the articles in PMC have been
accessed 11 times or more

14. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
www.costumeexpress.com

15. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
“This is the moment academic
publishers gave up all pretence
of being on the side of
scientists … Elsevier's business
does not make money by
publishing our work, but by
doing the exact opposite:
restricting access to it.”

16. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
• Efforts to improve access
• HR5116: America COMPETES
Reauthorization Act of 2010
www.costumeexpress.com
• HR5037: Federal Research Public
Access Act (FRPAA)
• Unsung heroes: SPARC

17. PLoS 2001
The petition
The ASCB
NIH Public Access policy
PubMed Central
PLoS 2011
Public Access
Open Access

18. Publ i c Ac c es s vs Open Ac c es s
> F r e e l y avai l ab l e > F r e e l y an d i mme d i at e l y
o n l i n e at s o me avai l ab l e o n l i n e
poi nt
> Co p yr i g h t al l o ws
p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n
unre s t ri ct e d re us e by
Te x t mi n i n g
www.bloggersodear.com
www.frenchhousebnb.com
S e man t i c e n r i c h me n t r e ad e r s , as l o n g as
at t r i b u t i o n i s g i ve n
D at a r e an al ys i s
Cl as s r o o m u s e Tr an s l at i o n , e t c …

19. “ Our aim is to catalyze a revolution in scientific publishing
by providing a compelling demonstration of the value and
feasibility of open-access publication. If we succeed… this
online public library of science will form a valuable resource
for science education, lead to more informed healthcare
decisions by doctors and patients, level the playing field for
scientists in smaller or less wealthy institutions, and ensure
that no one will be unable to read an important paper just
because his or her institution does not subscribe to a
particular journal.”
(2003)

20. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)
• Establish high quality journals
– put PLoS and open access on the map
• Build a more extensive OA publishing
operation
– an open access home for every paper
• Make the literature more useful
– to scientists and the public

21. PLoS Journals
2003 2004
• Professional editors
http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com
• Highly selective
• Added-value content/services
PLoS Biology
Academic EIC

22. PLoS Journals
2003 2004 2005 2005 2005
2006 2007

23. PLoS’ publishing operations are profitable

25. Why publish in PLoS ONE?
• Open access, reasonable author charges
• Inclusive scope
– a publication for the whole of science
• A new kind of peer review
– Objective criteria: Is it technically sound? Does
it meet reporting standards? Are the
conclusions justified based on the data?
– Not: interest, importance, significance
• Streamlined production
– acceptance to publication in as little as 3 wk
• Post-publication evaluation tools

26. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery:
the proliferation of PLOS ONE clones

27. PLOS ONE: Challenges and lessons learned
• Dealing with rapid growth, scaling
• Processes, people
• Consistent editorial decision-making
• As the corpus grows:
• Navigation of content
• Outlier problems - quality of papers,
processing time

28. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)
√ • Establish high quality journals
– put PLoS and open access on the map
√ • Build a more extensive OA publishing
operation
– an open access home for every paper
• Make the literature more useful
– to scientists and the public

29. PLoS (2011) : “Leading a Transformation
in Research Communication”
• Provide ways to overcome unnecessary
barriers to immediate availability, access,
and use of research
• Pursue a publishing strategy that
optimizes the openness, quality, and
integrity of the publication process
• Develop innovative approaches to the
assessment, organization, and reuse of
ideas and data

30. Experiments in progress
• I mp r o ve d r e - u s e o f c o n t e n t
> PLo S Hub s
• me as u r i n g i mp ac t at t h e ar t i c l e ( n o t j o u r n al ) l e v
> ar t i c l e - l e v e l me t r i c s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt
• e n c o u r ag e mo r e r ap i d an d o p e n d at a s h ar i n g
> PLo S Cur r e nt s
• p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n d i s c u s s i o n & c o mme n t
> c o mme nt i ng t o o l s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt
• b r i d g e t h e g ap b e t we e n r e s e ar c h r e p o r t i n g an d
t h e b r o ad e r p u b l i c
> PLo S Bl o g s

31. How do we measure the impact / importance
of a paper?
• By t h e t i t l e / i mp ac t f ac t o r o f t h e j o u r n a
i n wh i c h i t was p u b l i s h e d
!!! NO !!! !!! NO !!!

32. How do we measure the impact / importance
of a paper? How can we help readers
decide what to read?
• Ar t i c l e l e ve l me t r i c s
> c i t at i o n s t o t h at s p e c i f i c ar t i c l e
- s c h o l ar l y ( PMC, S c o p u s , Cr o s s r e f
W S)
o
- o t h e r ( W k i p e d i a, F 1 000)
i
> p ag e vi e ws , p d f d o wn l o ad s
> r e ad e r c o mme n t s , n o t e s , r at i n g s
> b l o g an d me d i a c o ve r ag e
> s o c i al me d i a d at a mi n i n g
- Twe e t s , F ac e b o o k “ l i k e s ” , Me n d e l
e t c … e t c ….

33. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000005
PLoS Article level metrics, v1: an example

35. ⇒ ALMs, combined with journals whose only
criterion for acceptance is being scientifically
sound (e.g. PLoS ONE)

36. http://www.altmetric.com/demos/plos.html

37. Article level metrics
Content re-use
Post-publication discussion/comment
Article of the future?