StATS: Open Access Journals, part 2 (October 14, 2007).

I'm giving a talk at the Grand Rounds for CMH on Thursday, October 18.  I'm using PowerPoint for this talk (here's the PDF of the slides), and I have a version in web format that skips the images but provides more content.

Here are some resources I probably will not use in my talk.

What does the term "free" in "free software" really mean?

The term "free software" is sometimes misunderstood--it has nothing to do with price. It is about freedom. Here, therefore, is the definition of free software. A program is free software, for you, a particular user, if:

Since "free" refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program that people are not free to include on these collections is not free software.

Note that this quote is from a book, that sells for $24.95, but which includes the entire contents online for free.

The Ingelfinger Rule and its relationship to pre-publication.

The following quote is a bit dated, but it is consistent with some medical journals hostility towards pre-publication. Michael Gottlieb had noted in 1981 an unusual series of five patients with Pneumocystis carinii and wanted to get word out rapidly about this.

"I've got something here that's bigger than Legionnaire's," he said. "What's the shortest time between submission and publication?"

The editor explained it would take three months to send the story around to a panel of expert reviewers who would make sure that it was scientifically sound. There would be another delay between the time the review was finished and the publication date, he said. He didn't need to tell Gottlieb about eh ironclad rule that the journal, like virtually all major scientific publications, maintained about the secrecy of material about to be published. If there was any leak whatsoever to the popular press about the research, the journal would pull the story from its pages.

"We'd like to see it," the editor concluded. "Sounds interesting, but there's no way we can guarantee that it will be published."

But this is an emergency, Gottlieb thought as he hung up the phone in frustration. You don't just run business as usual in an emergency.

And the Band Played On, Randy Shilts, page 63.

In fairness to gated journals, they do offer better alternatives today in a medical emergency. They also are trying to avoid a "scientific progress through press conference" model for disseminating research. Nevertheless, many medical journals today do not allow pre-publication in an archive repository. This is part of a controversial policy called the Ingelfinger rule.

Ingelfinger rule: The policy of considering a manuscript for publication only if its substance has not been submitted or reported elsewhere. This policy was promulgated in 1969 by Franz J. Ingelfinger, then the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine. The aim of the Ingelfinger rule was to protect the Journal from publishing material that had already been published and thus had lost its originality.

Another nice resource about the Ingelfinger Rule is

Pro/con debate about "author pays" model. There is a nice pair of articles in the BMJ which take opposite viewpoints about OA and the "author pays" model of research.

A sharply critical view of Open Access was published by Nature.

BioMed Centeral has a list of 11 myths about OA.

This page was written by Steve Simon while working at Children's Mercy Hospital. Although I do not hold the copyright for this material, I am reproducing it here as a service, as it is no longer available on the Children's Mercy Hospital website. Need more information? I have a page with general help resources. You can also browse for pages similar to this one at Category: Writing research papers.