[unrev-II] Fwd: Re: Fwd: Please tell your colleagues about Public Library of Science

From: Jack Park (jackpark@thinkalong.com)
Date: Sun May 13 2001 - 17:16:06 PDT

  • Next message: Jack Park: "[unrev-II] Engelbart in the news"

    John Bollen's comments are appropriate here.

    In fact, I got to the Public Library of Science by way of the link cited
    below. That link, as Bollen comments, is critical of the centralized
    nature of the PLS. It was my intention to make this view known to that
    group. I am thinking that mirror sites and so forth would/should spring up
    to reduce the centralized nature of PLS.

    Jack

    >X-Authentication-Warning: cic-mail.lanl.gov: jbollen owned process doing -bs
    >Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 17:42:57 -0600 (MDT)
    >From: Johan Bollen <jbollen@lanl.gov>
    >To: gbrain@listserv.vub.ac.be
    >Subject: Re: Fwd: Please tell your colleagues about Public Library of Science
    >Sender: owner-gbrain@listserv.vub.ac.be
    >Reply-To: gbrain@listserv.vub.ac.be
    >
    >Jack,
    >
    >relevant to this discussion is a recent essay by Rick Luce, Director of
    >the Research Library of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, published in
    >this week's edition of Nature:
    >
    >http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/e-access/Articles/luce.html
    >
    >The author's argument is that although the idea of a large and free public
    >library of science seems very appealing, its centralized and localized
    >nature carries a number of strong disadvantages.
    >
    >This discussion is very relevant to the Global Brain Mailing list. What we
    >seem to be looking at is a proposal for the implementation of a centralized
    >one-size-fits-all library which runs contrary to the
    >distributed, adaptive information technologies that the people on this
    >mailing list are interested in. I therefore urge the members of the Global
    >Brain mailing list to have a look at Rick Luce's essay before committing
    >to the PLS initiative as it now stands.
    >
    >Warm regards,
    >
    >Johan Bollen.
    >
    >
    > >On Sun, 13 May 2001, Jack Park wrote:
    >
    > > I am forwarding this response to this group because I happen to feel very
    > > strongly that the future of humanity resides in our ability to apply our
    > > intellect to finding solutions to complex, urgent problems. An important
    > > issue, I believe, is the free and unimpeded flow of information. I have
    > > signed this position based on my belief that there will be important gains
    > > made in our ability to build a global brain and augment human potentials
    > > when and if the scientific and technical literature becomes open and
    > > available for all to study ,use, and incorporate in public knowledge bases.
    > >
    > > Cheers
    > > Jack
    > >
    > > >Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 21:52:15 -0700
    > > >From: Public Library of Science Initiative
    > > ><feedback@publiclibraryofscience.org>
    > > >Dear Jack,
    > > >
    > > >Thank you for signing the open letter in support of unrestricted
    > > >access to scientific publications.
    > > >
    > > >As of late April, more than eightteen thousand scientists from 147
    > > >countries have joined you in signing the open letter in support of
    > > >the Public Library of Science initiative. As a result of this
    > > >initiative, several scientific publishers have already decided to
    > > >adopt the policy advocated in the open letter, and almost every
    > > >publisher and scientific society is discussing it. Yet, most life
    > > >scientists are still unaware of this initiative, and many of those
    > > >who do know of its existence have a distorted view of the proposal
    > > >and its purpose.
    > > >
    > > >The breadth and depth of support for this initiative from the
    > > >scientific community will determine its success. We believe that with
    > > >your help in informing your colleagues about this effort, and
    > > >encouraging them to support it, the open letter can be published in
    > > >May with the signatures of 50,000 scientists.
    > > >
    > > >To achieve this goal, we each need to reach out to at least ten of
    > > >our colleagues. We would therefore like to ask you to consider two
    > > >steps:
    > > >
    > > >1. Send an email message to all the scientific colleagues in your
    > > >address book (using the text attached at the bottom of this message,
    > > >or a modified version of it, or use your own language).
    > > >
    > > >2. Spend an hour or two of your time in the next week talking to
    > > >colleagues at your own and other institutions, explaining to them the
    > > >reasons that you chose to support the initiative, and encouraging
    > > >them to join you in signing the letter. (Let them know that they can
    > > >sign the letter online at: http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org).
    > > >
    > > >Please also make a special effort to talk directly with the editors
    > > >and publishers of journals that are important to you, informing them
    > > >of your support of this initiative, and encouraging them to adopt the
    > > >policy that the letter advocates. We would greatly appreciate hearing
    > > >about any such efforts you are able to make.
    > > >
    > > >Your time and effort can make the crucial difference in the success
    > > >of this initiative.
    > > >
    > > >Sincerely,
    > > >
    > > >Michael Ashburner, University of Cambridge
    > > >Patrick O. Brown, Stanford University
    > > >Mary Case, Association of Research Libraries
    > > >Michael B. Eisen, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab and UC Berkeley
    > > >Lee Hartwell, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
    > > >Marc Kirschner, Harvard University
    > > >Chaitan Khosla, Stanford University
    > > >Roel Nusse, Stanford University
    > > >Richard J. Roberts, New England Biolabs
    > > >Matthew Scott, Stanford University
    > > >Harold Varmus, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
    > > >Barbara Wold, Caltech
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >========= Model email message to send to colleagues =========
    > > >
    > > >Dear Colleague,
    > > >
    > > >We write to ask for your support of an initiative to provide
    > > >unrestricted access to the published record of scientific research.
    > > >An open letter in support of this initiative has been signed by more
    > > >than 14,000 scientists from 130 countries. We hope you will take a
    > > >minute to read the letter and consider signing it.
    > > >
    > > >The open letter, a list of the scientists who have already signed it,
    > > >and some answers to frequently asked questions are posted at:
    > > >http://www.publiclibraryofscience.org. This site also provides a way
    > > >for colleagues to sign the open letter online.
    > > >
    > > >You may also wish to read an editorial written by Richard J. Roberts,
    > > >recently published in PNAS, which explains why he supports the
    > > >initiative (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/041601398v1).
    > > >
    > > >This is a grassroots initiative, and the breadth and depth of support
    > > >it receives from the scientific community will determine its success.
    > > >If you decide to support this effort, please consider spending an
    > > >hour or two of your time in the next week talking to colleagues at
    > > >your own and other institutions, explaining to them the reasons that
    > > >you chose to support it, and encouraging them to join you in signing
    > > >the letter. Your effort can really make a difference.
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >
    > > >======== OPEN LETTER ========
    > > >
    > > >We support the establishment of an online public library that would
    > > >provide the full contents of the published record of research and
    > > >scholarly discourse in medicine and the life sciences in a freely
    > > >accessible, fully searchable, interlinked form. Establishment of this
    > > >public library would vastly increase the accessibility and utility of
    > > >the scientific literature, enhance scientific productivity, and
    > > >catalyze integration of the disparate communities of knowledge and
    > > >ideas in biomedical sciences.
    > > >
    > > >We recognize that the publishers of our scientific journals have a
    > > >legitimate right to a fair financial return for their role in
    > > >scientific communication. We believe, however, that the permanent,
    > > >archival record of scientific research and ideas should neither be
    > > >owned nor controlled by publishers, but should belong to the public,
    > > >and should be freely available through an international online public
    > > >library.
    > > >
    > > >To encourage the publishers of our journals to support this endeavor,
    > > >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
    > > >distribution 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.
    > >

    Community email addresses:
      Post message: unrev-II@onelist.com
      Subscribe: unrev-II-subscribe@onelist.com
      Unsubscribe: unrev-II-unsubscribe@onelist.com
      List owner: unrev-II-owner@onelist.com

    Shortcut URL to this page:
      http://www.onelist.com/community/unrev-II

    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 13 2001 - 17:28:32 PDT