“The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust announced today that they are to support a new, top-tier, open access journal for biomedical and life sciences research. The three organisations aim to establish a new journal that will attract and define the very best research publications from across these fields.

Cameron Neylon

::: {.zemanta-img style="margin: 1em; display: block;"}
::: {.wp-caption .alignright style="width: 310px"}
[![Open Access logo and
text](http://cameronneylon.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/300px-Open_Access_PLoS.svg_10.png "Open Access logo and text"){decoding="async"
loading="lazy" width="300"
height="120"}](http://commons.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_PLoS.svg)

Image via Wikipedia
:::
:::

ï»¿"*The [Howard Hughes Medical
Institute](http://www.hhmi.org/ "Howard Hughes Medical Institute"){.zem_slink
rel="homepage"}, the [Max Planck
Society](http://www.mpg.de "Max Planck Society"){.zem_slink
rel="homepage"} and the [Wellcome
Trust](http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/ "Wellcome Trust"){.zem_slink
rel="homepage"} announced today that they are to support a new,
top-tier, open access journal for biomedical and life sciences research.
The three organisations aim to establish a new journal that will attract
and define the very best research publications from across these fields.
All research published in the journal will make highly significant
contributions that will extend the boundaries of scientific knowledge."*
\[[Press
Release](http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/News/Media-office/Press-releases/2011/WTVM051897.htm)\]

It has been clear for some time that the slowness of the adoption of
open access publication models by researchers is in large part down to
terror that we have of stepping out of line and publishing in the
'wrong' journals. More radical approaches to publication will clearly
lag even further behind while this inherent conservatism is dominant.
Publishers like [PLoS](http://plos.org) and
[BMC](http://biomedcentral.com) have tackled this head on by aiming to
create prestigous journals but the top of the pile has remained the
traditional clutch of Nature, Science, and Cell.

The incumbent publishers have simultaneously been able to sit back due
to a lack of apparent demand from researchers. As the demand from
funders has increased they have held back, complaining the business
models to support Open Access publication are not clear. I've always
found the 'business model' argument slightly specious. Sustainability is
important but scholarly publishing has never really had a viable
business model, it has had a subsidy from funders. Part of the problem
has been the multiple layers and channels that subsidy has gone through
but essentially funders, through indirect funding of academic libraries,
have been footing the bill.

Some funders, and the Wellcome Trust has lead on this, have demanded
that their researchers make their outputs accessible while
simultaneously requiring publishers comply with their requirements on
access and re-use rights. But progress has been slow, particularly in
opening up what is perceived as the top of the market. Despite major
inroads made by [PLoS
Biology](http://www.plosbiology.org/ "PLoS Biology"){.zem_slink
rel="homepage"} and [PLos
Medicine](http://www.plosmedicine.org/ "PLoS Medicine"){.zem_slink
rel="homepage"} those journals perceived as the most prestigious have
remain resolutely closed.

Government funders are mostly constrained in their freedom to act but
the Wellcome Trust, HHMI, and Max Planck Society have the independence
to take the logical step. They are already paying for publication, why
not actively support the formation of a new journal, properly open
access, and at the same time lend the prestige that their names can
bring?

This will send a very strong message, both to researchers and
publishers, about what these funders value, and where they see value for
money. It is difficult to imagine this will not lead to a seismic shift
in the publishing landscape, at least from a political and financial
perspective. I don't believe this journal will be as technically radical
as I would like, but it is unlikely it could be while achieving the aims
that it has. I do hope the platform it is built on enables innovation
both in terms of what is published and the process by which it is
selected.

But in a sense that doesn't matter. This venture can remain incredibly
conservative and still have a huge impact on taking the research
communication space forward. What it means is that three of the worlds
key funders have made an unequivocal statement that they want to see
Open Access, [full open
access](http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml) on publication
without restrictions on commercial use, or text-mining, or re-use in any
form, across the whole of the publication spectrum. And if they don't
get it from the incumbent publishers they're prepared to make it happen
themselves.

*Full Disclosure: I was present at a meeting at [Janelia
Farm](http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=39.0716,-77.4648&spn=0.01,0.01&q=39.0716,-77.4648%20(Janelia%20Farm%20Research%20Campus)&t=h "Janelia Farm Research Campus"){.zem_slink
rel="geolocation"} in 2010 where the proposal to form a journal was
discussed by members of the Wellcome, HHMI, and MPG communities.*

::: {.zemanta-pixie style="margin-top: 10px; height: 15px;"}
[![Enhanced by
Zemanta](http://img.zemanta.com/zemified_e.png?x-id=75eb6ccc-31df-43f1-a5b7-4f1595e3498f){.zemanta-pixie-img
decoding="async"
style="border: none; float: right;"}](http://www.zemanta.com/ "Enhanced by Zemanta"){.zemanta-pixie-a}
:::


Image via Wikipedia  ï»¿“*The Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society and the Wellcome Trust announced today that they are to support a new, top-tier, open access journal for biomedical and life sciences research. The three organisations aim to establish a new journal that will attract and define the very best research publications from across these fields.

Messaggi di Rogue Scholar

A new sustainability model: Major funders to support OA journal