Open Science: ongoing discussion

Recently introduced legislation to reverse the NIH's public access policy has reignited the debate over both the NIH's policy and the open access publishing model. An article in the New York Times reported on advocates of "open science." According to advocates, the current scientific publishing "system is hidebound, expensive and elitist, they say. Peer review can take months, journal subscriptions can be prohibitively costly, and a handful of gatekeepers limit the flow of information. It is an ideal system for sharing knowledge, said the quantum physicist Michael Nielsen, only 'if you’re stuck with 17th-century technology.' Dr. Nielsen and other advocates for 'open science' say science can accomplish much more, much faster, in an environment of friction-free collaboration over the Internet. And despite a host of obstacles, including the skepticism of many established scientists, their ideas are gaining traction."http://tinyurl.com/78apwyy