Quelques discussions intéressantes sur le sujet de la publication scientifique Open Access suite à la parution d'un article dans Nature sur les finances de PLoS. The Economist a repris l'information dans un article intitulé Creative destruction in the library, je cite :

Free access to research is proving more expensive than hoped. But it is spreading, nevertheless

[...] There are, however, a few thorns among the roses. Traditional publishers are often sceptical about the business models of their open-access rivals, and they sometimes have cause to be. The Public Library of Science (PLoS), an American organisation regarded by many as the flagship of the open-access movement, lost almost $1m last year. As a result, it is about to increase its charge from $1,500 per article to as much as $2,500, depending on which of its journals an author publishes in.

[...] BioMed Central, a British open-access publisher, has also increased its charges—from $500 to as much as $1,700 per article. It, too, has still to break even. Yet it received some good news this month. Thomson Scientific, a firm that evaluates the impact of journals, looked at citations made in 2005 of articles published between 2003 and 2004. Eleven journals published by BioMed Central received their first such assessment, and nine of them appeared in the top ten highest-impact journals in their fields. Whatever the traditional publishers might hope, open-access does not look in imminent danger of perishing.

Cela a bien sur suscité des réactions dans la communauté :

A noter aussi une interview, qui précède ces articles, d'un des éditeurs de PLoS sur Open and Shut?, je cite un passage qui me parait très pertinent :

[...] RP: Clearly you were interested. But tell me, why does the world need PLoS ONE?

CS: Because the system of disseminating scientific research has become extremely inefficient, and the concept of the journal has been eroded by the Internet.

RP: How do you mean?

CS: The Internet is providing us with all sorts of new tools for communicating science, so simply publishing journals, and distributing them electronically isn’t using the full potential of the Web to make the dissemination of scientific information efficient and effective. It just isn't the best way to do it anymore. [...]

Et un billet de statistiques sur le The Imaginary Journal of Poetic Economics (le titre ne s'invente pas :) :

[...] Growth continued very strong in both the gold and green roads. DOAJ, today at 2,292 journals, added 134 journal titles, an increase of about 1 and 1/2 titles per day (calendar days, not business days), about an equivalent of a 25% annual increase. More than half a million items were added to an OAIster search, for a total of more than 7.6 million items, or about the equivalent of a 24% annual increase. At the current rate of growth, an OAIster search can be anticipated to encompass more than a billion items before the end of 2007. [...]

Qu'en pense le monde de la finance ? Le titre phare de l'édition fermée Reed Elsevier fait du surplace depuis 2 ans alors que le STOXX50E a fait +30% sur la même période, voir ce graphique.