Macilwain's astute article (BioScience 63: 7–11) on the status of open-access publishing is a welcome summary of recent developments and associated major issues being vigorously debated. One gets the strong impression that the big questions are centered on profits for the big corporate publishers and support for this from governmental and private granting institutions. The essay, however, does not explicitly mention the large number of research scientists, from all parts of the world, who are working with little or no grant support. For them, support for open-access publication can mainly come only from their own institutions or their own pockets. Traditionally, of course, this component of the scientific community depends heavily on publication through their professional societies and associated journals. If this route is phased out without the finding of some realistic alternative, this major segment of the scientific enterprise will be hard pressed to survive. We need to come up with a more comprehensive open-access scheme that accommodates all aspects of good science, not just the well-funded parts.
You have requested a machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Neither BioOne nor the owners and publishers of the content make, and they explicitly disclaim, any express or implied representations or warranties of any kind, including, without limitation, representations and warranties as to the functionality of the translation feature or the accuracy or completeness of the translations.
Translations are not retained in our system. Your use of this feature and the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in the Terms and Conditions of Use of the BioOne website.