open access in medicine
TRANSCRIPT
Open Access in Medicine - Overview
Klinik für Hämatologie, Hämostaseologie, Onkologie und
Stammzelltransplantation
Martin Fenner
Open Access
The author(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable right of access to, and a license to copy, use and distribute the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, subject to proper attribution of authorship.
A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository.
Berlin Declaration on Open Access 2003
„Allianz der Deutschen WIssenschaftsorganisationen“ signed the Berlin Declaration
24
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
!"#$%#"&' ())*#+,-./' 01#+' 2,-#""#-3#'4-,--5' 6)%.-' 4."&' 7)+48$#+' &,+,9:' ,";#!<.#4#"='2,-#"='>9#??#"'9"&'7)+48$9";4!#+;#1".44#' %@;?.8$4-' )$"#' +#8$-?.8$#='
01#+'&,4' A"-#+"#-'"9-3#"' 39'(@""#"5' A"'&.#4#%'6.""#':@+&#+-'B*#"'C88#44'".8$-'"9+' &.#' ."-#+",-.)",?#' D#+"#-39";' &#+'E.44#"48$,:-=' 4)"&#+"' -+F;-' ,98$' 39'#."#+' 1#44#+#"'E,$+"#$%9";' #9+)*F.!48$#+'7)+48$9";'<#?-<#.-'1#.5
D)+'&.#4#%'G."-#+;+9"&'9"-#+4-0-3-'&.#' !"#$%&'"( )*+%&'#,-%-"."/,%&'01$(2!)34',?4'H+4-9"-#+3#.8$"#+."'&#+'5"+6/7,"+( 8+96:+#,-' &#"' #"-;#?-:+#.#"' I9;,";'39' <.44#"48$,:-?.8$#%' E.44#"' &9+8$'
!#"=' 39+' H"-<.8(?9";' /)"' J#*)4.-)+.#"!1,4.#+-#"' K#$+<#+-&.#"4-#"=' &9+8$'
B*#"!C88#44!I#.-48$+.:-#"' 4)<.#' &9+8$'&.#'L#<F$+9";'/)"'M91?.(,-.)"4()4-#"5'I9&#%':@+&#+-#'&.#'!)3A":)+%,-.)"4*?,--:)+%' B*#"' C88#44='&.#' ,?4' ",-.)",?#'C"?,9:4-#??#' 4F%-?.8$#'7,8#--#"' ' #"-;#?-:+#.#"' M91?.3.#+#"4'9%:,44#"&'&,+4-#??-5'2.#'C(-./.-F-#"',9:'",-.)",?#+'H1#"#'<#+&#"'#+;F"3-'&9+8$';#%#."4,%#'D)+$,1#"'9"&'M+)N#(-#' .%'#9+)*F.48$#"'O%:#?&=' ."41#4)"&#+#'%.-'&#"' M,+-"#+"' ' ;,*<6"=-"( 8>&'0,-"'P#-3<#+(45
A%' Q,"9,+' RSST' /#+,148$.#&#-#' &#+'G,9*-,9448$944'&#+'!)3'J.8$-?.".#"='%.-'&#"#"'M+)N#(-"#$%#+'&#+'!)3',9:;#:)+!&#+-'<#+&#"='",8$'K@;?.8$(#.-' ."'B*#"!C88#44!I#.-48$+.:-#"'39'*91?.3.#+#"')&#+'.$+#' M91?.(,-.)"#"' 394F-3?.8$' 01#+' J#!*)4.-)+.#"'1#+#.-394-#??#"5'2#""'&.#'!)3'
„erwartet, dass die mit ihren Mitteln finan-
zierten Forschungsergebnisse publiziert und
dabei möglichst auch digital veröffentlicht und
für den entgeltfreien Zugriff im Internet (Open
Access) verfügbar gemacht werden.“
U>9#??#V' D#+<#"&9";4+.8$-?.".#"'6,8$1#.$.?:#W5
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) ist die -
29
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG)
!"#$ %&'&())*+,(%&$ -).$ */&01(&%&).$2
,(&0+&$ 340#56-)%#40%7)(#7+(4)$ 804.-2,(&0+$ .(&$!"#$%&"'()$*+,+&&,(-"./0 1!%*2$'(+$(60&0$340#56-)%$&()$9::&)+"(56&#$;-+<$.7#$ ('$ 9::&)+"(56&)$ =)+&0&##&$ %&)-+,+$1&0.&)$#4"">$?(&$#&+,+&$#(56$.C"/$#564)$:0*6$:*0$.&)$@8&)2!55&##2;&.7)A&)$&()>
=)+&0)$:40.&0+$#(&$()$(60&)$B&%&")$,-0$?(56&0-)%$%-+&0$1(##&)#567:+"(56&0$C072D(#$ (60&$ 1(##&)#567:+"(56&)$E(+70/&(+&0$,-0$ F&756+-)%$ .&#$ C0(),(8#$ .&0$ G::&)+2"(56A&(+$ .&0$ ;0-)."7%&):40#56-)%$ 7-:>$H7'(+$ A400T).(&0&).$ 1-0.&)$ (60&$B&%&"-)%&)$ :*0$ .7#$ 3756/&(07+#1&#&)$-'$ .&)$ F&0(56+#8-)A+$ @8&)$ !55&##$ &02%I),+>
!-#$ .(&#&'$ ;&(#+$ &0:4"%+&$ ('$ J760$KLLM$ .(&$ =)(+((&0-)%$ .&0$3+4&5'+40 64)&7$48'9$ */&0$ .&)$ 4::&)&)$ N-%7)%$ ,-$ 1(#2#&)#567:+"(56&'$O(##&)<$1&"56&$#(56$,-$&()&'$ .&0$ ,&)+07"&)$ ;0*).-)%#.4A-2'&)+&$.&0$()+&0)7+(4)7"&)$@8&)$!55&##2F&1&%-)%$&)+1(5A&"+&>$H-056$P)+&0#+*+2,-)%$QI60"(56&0$34"%&A4):&0&),&)$#41(&$.-056$&)%&$)7+(4)7"&$-).$()+&0)7+(4)7"&$R448&07+(4)&)$#+I0A+$.(&$!%*$.&)$@8&)2!55&##2;&.7)A&)$ .7'(+$ 7-56$ 7A+(S$ 7-2T&067"/$.&0$&(%&)&)$@0%7)(#7+(4)>
H(&$ A4)A0&+&$ P'#&+,-)%$ 1(0.$ ()2)&067"/$.&0$!%*$S40$7""&'$7)$.&)$!"#$%&"'()$:',/5/8/+'01!%:,2$%&"&(#+&+>$E(+$.&0$('$J760$KLLU$%&%0*).&+&)$!"#0%&"'()0;5$95/"&0<5=4"4>01!%;<2$67+$.(&$!%*$&0%I)2,&).$&()&$,&)+07"&$=)#+(+-+(4)$%ȷ::&)<$.&0&)$!-:%7/&)#8&A+0-'$.(&$390.&0-)%$.&#$@8&)2!55&##2;&.7)A&)#$-).$.&##&)$807A+(#56&$!)1&).-)%$&()#56"(&T+>$H40+$(#+$7-56$.7#$?@+'0A((+,,0%B&5(>0C+"D$7)2%&#(&.&"+<$ .&##&)$ !-:%7/&$ .(&$ F&07+-)%$-).$ P)+&0#+*+,-)%$ .&0$ !%:,$ -).$ .(&$V&0+0&+-)%$ .&0$ @8&)2!55&##2C4"(+(A$ .&0$!%*$ (#+>$ H-056$ .(&$ F*).&"-)%$ S4)$ F&2#567::-)%#&+7+#$7)$.&0$!%;<$1-0.&$.(&$V407-##&+,-)%$%ȷ::&)<$@8&)2!55&##2
2,(&0&)>$;"&(56/&0&56+(%+$1(0.$.&0$*4E'+0F+9$.-056$.&)$F&+0(&/$-).$.(&$W&-&)+21(5A"-)%$ &()&#$ ,&)+07"&)$ ()#+(+-+(4)&"2"&)$B&84#(+40(-'#$-)+&0#+*+,+>
Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Wis-senschaften e.V.
Institute betreiben Grundlagenforschung in den
30
Wissenschaftsrat
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
Wissenschaftsrat-
-
-
28
Leibniz-Gemeinschaft
!"#$ !"#$%#&'(")"#%*+,-./$ %&'$ (")%$ *+,$-"#.$ /#(#'*'0$ 1#2$ 34#"#2$ 5+('&+()%$ 6+&7."'8'(/#94:3'#4$ +21$ ;#/+'&)%'#'#4$ <=47()%+2/(#4/#;2"((#$ "2$ 1"/"'&.#4$ <=4,$>?9#2$ 5))#((@$ ('84A#4$ *+$ 3B41#42C$ !#4$()%2#..#$ +21$ 1"4#A'#$ -+/&2/$ *+$ 1"#(#4$D23=4,&'"=2$ E$ F#1#4*#"'0$ :;#4&..0$ 3:4$1#2$ G+'*#4$ A=('#2.=($ +21$ =%2#$ H&44"7
+2'#4(':'*'$ "2'#42&'"=2&.#$ +21$ "2'#471"(*"9."284#$ I==9#4&'"=20$ J#4('84A'$ 1"#$
K+;."A&'"=2#2$ +21$ ,&L","#4'$ 1#2$ G+'7*#2$B33#2'.")%$/#3B41#4'#4$<=4()%+2/C
!+4)%$ 1"#$ M2'#4*#")%2+2/$ 1#4$ 0"1'2#%"134152617%839$"13:"%3;.."%"%3<78-%83&73 =#**"%*+,-./2#+,")3 >#**"%$ %&'$ (")%$
1"#$ 1&3:4$ 2='N#21"/#2$ O&%,#2;#1"27/+2/#2$ *+$ ()%&33#2C$ !"#($ /#()%"#%'$ "2$5;('",,+2/$,"'$4#2=,,"#4'#2$P"((#27()%&3'(=4/&2"(&'"=2#20$ 1#4$ ?"7/*+,"%3@;1*+,7%8*8")"#%*+,-./3A?@(B$+21$"2'#472&'"=2&.#4$D2"'"&'"J#2$N"#$1#4$CD4EFGC$
P")%'"/#$ Q)%4"''#$ 1#4$ !"#$%#&'("')"#%*+,-./$ *+4$ M,(#'*+2/$ 1#4$ 0"12#%"134152617%8$ N&4#2$ 1"#$ R4:21+2/$ 1#($ 547;#"'(A4#"(#($?9#2$5))#(($ ",$Q#9'#,;#4$STTU$+21$1"#$V#4&;()%"#1+2/$1#4$?9#275))#((7W#"'."2"#$ "2$ STTXC$ D2$ 1"#$ K4&L"($+,/#(#'*'$N"41$1"#$W#"'."2"#$1+4)%$J"#.7
!"#$%#&'H"I;*#/;1J$ (=..#2$1"#$ ",$ ?9#2$ 5))#(($ J#43:/;&4#2$ K+;7."A&'"=2#2$ &+($ 1#2$ W#";2"*7D2('"'+'#2$*+(&,,#2/#3:%4'$N#41#2C$!&2#;#2$;#7'4#";#2$#"2"/#$W#";2"*7D2('"'+'#$3&)%(9#7
P"((#2()%&3'.#42$ 1&($ K+;."*"#4#2$ &+3$1#,$(;2:"%"%$+21$(19%"%3>"8$1#($?9#2$5))#(($*+$#4,B/.")%#2C
Leibniz-Gemeinschaft, vereint unter -
-
-
Natur- und Ingenieurswissenschaften sowie der Um-
-
27
Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK)
!"#$ !"#$%#$&'()*+"(),*",-)(),./ 0!123/%&'$ ()#*$ +,,#--$ &.-$ /%#0&$ 123%4#"'"5$&615#52"11#*$ 6*7$ 6*'#2-'3'4#*7$ 8#5.#"9'#':$ ;26*7.&5#$ 7"#-#-$ <*5&5#0#*'-$ "-'$7"#$ =8#24#656*5>$ 7&--$ 7#2$ ?@-'#*#*'9A",B.6*5$ "*$ 7#2$ A"--#*-,%&1'.",%#*$C"'#2&'62D#2-@256*5$ 8#5#5*#'>$ 7#2$ E*91@20&'"@*-465&*5$ #2A#"'#2'$ -@A"#$ 7"#$A"--#*-,%&1'.",%#$ +28#"'$ "*$ F@2-,%6*5>$C#%2#$6*7$G'67"60$8#-,%.#6*"5'$6*7$#19
H#2#"'-$IJJI$%&'$-",%$7"#$!12$0"'$7#*$456-)$'&,7),/.&(/8)&9&%(:#$+&,7/;)%/<,=-"(59+:",%=/ &,;/ >&?':*9+:",%%@%+)5%$ 132$&.'#2*&'"D#$ K68."B&'"@*-1@20#*$ &6-5#9-)2@,%#*:$!#0#*'-)2#,%#*7$"-'$7"#$!12$#"*#2$7#2$<2-'6*'#24#",%*#2$7#2$A)(':,)(/4(*'B(&,7$"0$L&%2$IJJM:$!"#$NO?9/&56*5$!"#$%#$&'%+(9+)7:),/ .&/ C6),/ D##)%%$ %&'$IJJP$ D"#.1Q.'"5#$0R5.",%#$ N@,%-,%6.&B9'"D"'Q'#*$ &615#4#"5'>$ A"#$ 4:$H:$ @11#*-"D#$E*1@20&'"@*-&28#"'>$ O#[email protected]'"@*#*$ 84A:$<0)1#%.6*5#*$-@A"#$7"#$G,%&116*5$6*7$7#*$+6-8&6$7#2$ .@B&.#*$6*7$%@,%-,%6.938#252#"1#*7#*$ E*12&-'26B'62:$ E0$ O&%90#*$ 7#2$ E)(59,/ )=F#:),#)=G",-)(),#)/HIIJ$%&'$7"#$!12$D#2-,%"#7#*#$+-)#B'#$8#.#6,%'#'$ 6*7$ 7#*$ !"&.@5$ 0"'$ E*'#2#-9-#*526))#*$1@2'5#13%2':$
H#"$7#2$S0-#'46*5$D@*$()#*$+,,#--$.#5'$7"#$!12$52@T#*$U#2'$&61$7"#$H#&,%9'6*5$7#2$7"D#2-#*$O&%0#*8#7"*56*5#*$132$7"#$#"*4#.*#*$N@,%-,%6.#*:$!"#-$5".'$"*$8#-@*7#2#2$U#"-#$&6,%$132$7"#$6*'#29-,%"#7.",%#*$FQ,%#2V$
„Bei der Förderung von Open Access müs-
sen wir natürlich stets die verschiedenen Publi-
kationskulturen der wissenschaftlichen Fächer
berücksichtigen, aber wir sind sicher, dass grund-
sätzlich alle Fächer profitieren können“,
8#'@*'$ 7"#$ NO?9K2Q-"7#*'"*>$ K2@1#-9-@2$!2:$W&252#'$U"*'#20&*'#.:$
Hochschulrektorenkonferenz (HRK) ist der freiwil-
--
26
Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
!"#$%&'()'"*+ *'&+ ,-$$-."+ *'&+ !"#$%&'#()%*"$"+,-.&/0(/+0'-#&12'+34&+56$4"2+2&.7'&+4"*+*&1"2'"*'&+8&92'"+:."+;'<$'==$()9>#/+?-$$'"$()9>#+4"*+?-&#$()9>#+34+ ='-$#'"/+ )9#+ *9$+ @)'A9+ B%'"+ C(('$$+
D'=A).=#3<E'"#&'"F+G'&+ >&'-'+ E429"2+ 34+ H-$$'"$()9>#=-<
()'"+ !&I'""#"-$$'"+ >6&*'&#+ 5'-$#4"2$<>1)-2I'-#+ 4"*+ J"".:9#-."K+ B%'"+ C(('$$+:'&L'$$'&#+ *-'+ J">.&A9#-."$:'&$.&24"2+*'&+ ?-$$'"$()9>#+ H'=#H'-#/+ '&='-()#'&#+*'"+ @&9"$>'&+ :."+ 8.&$()4"2$'&2'L"-$<$'"+-"+*-'+?-&#$()9>#+4"*+'&A62=-()#+*'&+;'$'==$()9>#+ *'"+ '-">9()'"+ E429"2+ 34+?-$$'"+4"*+J">.&A9#-."F+
G-'+ !"#$&'#()%*"$"+,-.&/0(+ 2')6&<#'+ MNNO+ 34+ *'"+ !&$#4"#'&3'-()"'&"+ *'&+1"2#+,"23425#627,8F+G-'$'+P.$-#-."+H4&*'+*4&()+ *-'+ ,-#2=-'*'&:'&$9AA=4"2+ 94$<*&Q(I=-()+L'$#1#-2#K+
„Publikationen aus der Helmholtz-Gemein-
schaft sollen künftig ohne Ausnahme kosten-
los zugänglich sein, soweit nicht ausdrückliche
Vereinbarungen mit Verlagen und anderen dem
entgegenstehen.“
R0'$()=4$$+ *'&+ ,-#2=-'*'&:'&$9AA<=4"2+:.A+MSFNTFMNNUV
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
Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft -
Ihre Arbeit steht in der Tradition des großen Naturfor-
25
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
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
J",$ !"#$%&'()"*+),)--,.&#(/$ /,.830;#$)&'$ -",',+$ K.&(-$ -)'$ :",0E$ &(,"(;,4'1*.G(6#$ -)'$ LH,(4%11,''42."(<"H$ <&$.,)0"'",.,($&(-$)00,$2&90"6)#"3(,($ "*.,.$%.,($ )0'$ D300#,M#$ 8.,"$ <&;G(;0"1*$ <&$+)1*,(A$N",$&(#,.'#?#<#$-",$2&90"6)#"3($"($ )(,.6)((#,($ LH,(4%11,''4:,"#'1*."84#,($ 3-,.$ 420)##83.+,(A$ 2&90"6)#"3(,(E$
40"1*6,"#$ ("1*#$ &(+"##,09).$ <&;G(;0"1*,($2&90"6)#"3('+,-",($ ,.'1*,"(,(E$ '300,($"($@3.+$,"(,.$73H",$)&8$-,+$ "('#"#&#"34(,00,($ O,H3'"#3."&+$ !"#$%&'()"*)0"1%/,$<&.$ D,.8?;&(;$ ;,'#,00#$ =,.-,(A$ J",','$3.",(#",.#$ '"1*$ )($ "(#,.()#"3()0,($ N#)(4-).-'E$&+$-,($8.,",($:&;)(;$<&$-,($P,M4#,($-)&,.*)8#$<&$;,=G*.0,"'#,($&(-$,"(,$,(;,$D,.(,#<&(;$+"#$)(-,.,($O,H3'"#34.",($<&$,.+B;0"1*,(A
J",$!"#$%&'()"*+),)--,.&#(/$',#<#$'"1*$"($ 733H,.)#"3($ +"#$ -,($ )(-,.,($ -,'1*,($Q"'',('1*)8#',"(."1*#&(;,($-)8?.$,"(E$-)''$"+$()#"3()0,($=",$,&.3HG"'1*,($O)*+,($ -)'$ LH,(4%11,''42&90"<",.,($)0'$ B88,(#0"1*,'$ >(#,.,'',$ =)*.;,(3+4+,($=".-$&(-$-",$ .,1*#0"1*,($O)*+,(49,-"(;&(;,($,(#'H.,1*,(-$)&';,'#)0#,#$=,.-,(A
Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft ist die führende euro-
-
---
bereichs erwirtschaftet die Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft
Gold OAPublishing in an Open Access journal
Green OASelf-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed Central
PubMed comprises more than 19 million citations for biomedical articles from MEDLINE and life science journals. Citations may include links to full-text articles from PubMed Central or publisher web sites.
Availability of fulltext articles in PubMed in 2005
journal’s publishers (72.1%). PMC (26.0%) was thesecond most common method of access, followed byjournal platforms or portal sites (17.4%).
In contrast, the percentage of OA articles availablevia self-archiving (in IRs and authors’ personalwebsites) was considerably lower (5.9% and 4.8%,respectively). However, 87.7% (64 of 73 items) of thearticles available from IRs were published in journalsthat did not have a stated policy of OA. Thus althoughonly a small number of articles were available fromIRs, these repositories were important because theyprovided OA articles that were not available in otherlocations.
Despite the fact that the NIH public access policytook effect in May 2005, the number of articles madeavailable by authors’ self-archiving in PMC repre-sented only a small minority of the OA articles. Wefound only 1 author’s manuscript among the targetarticles, while NIH reports that 200–500 authors’manuscripts were archived per month in 2005 [16].
Method of providing OA by countries. Threethousand six hundred ninety-five articles in thesample included information on the affiliation of thefirst author. Articles from the 20 countries with thehighest number of articles in this sample were thenfurther analyzed for patterns of OA (Table 1). Authorsresiding in Belgium had the highest rate of OA articlepublication: 41.7% of the articles by these authorswere OA. They were followed by India (40.0%),Canada (37.6%), and Brazil (36.4%). While articlesby authors residing in these countries had OA ratesgreater than 35%, they represent less than 2% of thetotal articles in the sample, except for Canada. Thesmall sample size might account for the high OA
ratios. Among the 8 countries accounting for thelargest number of articles in the sample, the rate atwhich OA articles were published by authors residingin Canada was the highest (37.6%), with the UnitedStates second (30.1%). Articles by authors from 4 othercountries were also published as OA at a rate of morethan 20%: the United Kingdom (24.0%), France(22.3%), Japan (20.9%), and Italy (20.3%).
Among these top 20 countries in terms of number ofarticles, with the exception of Brazil, a high percent-age of OA articles were accessible from journalwebsites. This result mirrored the overall trendmentioned in the previous section. In countries suchas the United States and the United Kingdom, thepercentage of OA articles accessible from journalwebsites was very high (70 or 80%) and thoseaccessible through PMC was around 30%, whichwas a little higher than average. Japan and Brazil,however, showed different patterns of providing OA.
Although the percentage of OA from journalwebsites was the highest among the various types ofOA (57.1%) studied, a distinctive characteristic inJapan was the higher percentage of journal platformsor portal sites (40.8%). All of the OA articles byauthors residing in Japan and categorized as journalplatforms or portal sites were available from J-STAGE. J-STAGE is an electronic journal platformthat was established by a Japanese governmentalagency to encourage domestic scholarly societies inscience, technology, and medicine to make theirjournals available online. Most journal publishers onJ-STAGE have been offered support to digitize theirarticles at no cost. The high percentage of J-STAGEOA journal articles indicates that the Japanesegovernment’s policy on the digitization of society
Figure 1Full text availability of sample articles (n54,667)
Matsubayashi et al.
8 J Med Libr Assoc 97(1) January 2009
Matsubayashi M et al. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.002.
Distribution of PubMed Open Access articles from Germany in 2005
Journal Website
PubMed Central
Institutional Repository
Author’s Website
0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Matsubayashi M et al. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.002.
NIH Public Access Policy
Starting May 25, 2008, peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds have to be submitted to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication.
These papers have to be made accessible to the public on PubMed Central no later than 12 months after publication.
Submissions to PubMed Central
NIH Public Access Policy
http://www.nihms.nih.gov/stats/index.shtml
Researcher Science Library Institution
Funding Organisation
Journal
JournalistsGeneral Public Policy Makers
Reader
ReviewerEditorAuthor
Researcher
Reader
Gideon Burton: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wakingtiger/3157621376/
The 20 most popular journals in my reference manager (about 1700 papers) include
1 Open Access journal:
PLoS Medicine
3 Journals without an institutional subscription:
Cell
Lancet Oncology
Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
Gene Mutations in Cytogenetically Normal Acute Myeloid Leukemia
n engl j med 358;18 www.nejm.org may 1, 2008 1915
the mutations we analyzed confirm and substan-tially extend the results of previous studies.21-34 Logistic-regression analyses showed that the gen-otype of mutant NPM1 without FLT3-ITD was associated with a complete remission after con-ventional anthracycline and cytarabine–based in-duction therapy. Similarly, the mutant CEBPA gen-otype was associated with a complete remission, a correlation that had not been found in previous studies of CEBPA as a single genetic marker.28-30 In Cox regression analyses with relapse-free and overall survival as end points, the genotype of mutant NPM1 without FLT3-ITD and the mutant CEBPA genotype again appeared to be associated with a favorable outcome. The 4-year rate of over-all survival for patients with the mutant NPM1 genotype without FLT3-ITD was 60% and for those with mutant CEBPA was 62%. These out-come data are similar to those for patients with core-binding-factor leukemias, which are catego-rized as diseases with cytogenetically favorable risks.39-41 In contrast, the subgroups of patients with the FLT3-ITD genotype or the triple-nega-tive genotype consisting of wild-type NPM1 and CEBPA without FLT3-ITD had similarly poor out-comes, with 4-year rates of relapse-free survival of 24% and 25%, respectively, and 4-year rates of overall survival of 24% and 33%, respectively.
The influence of FLT3-TKD mutations on the outcome is unsettled. A negative influence was reported in a meta-analysis,42 but in a recent study by the Medical Research Council, TKD mu-tations were associated with a favorable outcome in the entire cohort as well as in patients with cytogenetically normal AML.43 In our study, FLT3-TKD mutations were not significantly associated with the outcome, possibly because other genetic markers, NPM1 in particular, were considered in the multivariable analysis. Notably, 54% of pa-tients with the mutant FLT3-TKD genotype were in the subgroup of patients with the prognosti-cally favorable genotype of mutant NPM1 with-out FLT3-ITD; in contrast, patients with a FLT3-TKD mutation as the sole aberration had a poor outcome.
Among the various clinical and genetic fea-tures at presentation, besides genotype, the only significant factor for overall survival in our study was age, and this result was mainly due to the favorable outcome among younger patients who received a stem-cell transplant from a matched unrelated donor after relapse. However, age did
not influence relapse-free survival in the donor group or in the no-donor group. In contrast, recently published data from the Dutch–Belgian Hemato-Oncology Cooperative Group and the
22p3
100
80
90
70
60
40
30
10
50
20
00 1 65432 7 8 9 10
Mutant CEBPA
Other genotypes
Other genotypes
P<0.001
Other genotypesMutant NPM1 without
FLT3-ITDMutant CEBPA
212136
62
90102
40
6083
32
924
6
513
4
1434
11
2750
17
3864
26
48
4
23
3
01
0
AUTHOR:
FIGURE:
JOB:
4-CH/T
RETAKEICM
CASE
EMail LineH/TCombo
Revised
REG F
Enon
1st2nd3rd
Schlenk (Dohner)
2 of 3
05-01-08
ARTIST: ts
35818 ISSUE:
100
80
90
70
60
40
30
10
50
20
00 1 65432 7 8 9 10
Mutant CEBPA
P<0.001
Other genotypesMutant NPM1 without
FLT3-ITDMutant CEBPA
266150
67
153123
54
90101
39
1525
8
914
6
2238
13
3956
19
6875
30
710
5
44
3
02
0
Mutant NPM1without FLT3-ITD
Mutant NPM1 without FLT3-ITD
Figure!2.!Kaplan–Meier!Survival!Estimates,!According!to!Genotype.
Data are shown for relapse-free survival (Panel A) and overall survival (Panel B). “Other genotypes” is defined as the FLT3-ITD genotype and the triple-negative genotype consisting of wild-type NPM1 and CEBPA without FLT3-ITD. Tick marks represent patients whose data were censored at the last time they were known to be alive and in complete remission (Panel A) or whose data were censored at the last time they were known to be alive (Panel B).
Copyright © 2008 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved. Downloaded from www.nejm.org at MHH BIBLIOTHEK MEDIZINISCHEN HOCHSCHULE on October 4, 2008 .
Schlenk R et al. NEJM 2008 doi:10.1056/NEJMra063728
6.1. Surveillance
A surveillance strategy should be used as thepreferred treatment option in patients in whom
this approach is considered feasible [EBM IIB:115,116]. This recommendation takes into accountthat up to 88% of patients can be cured byorchiectomy and are therefore overtreated by any
Fig. 1 – Treatment algorithm after orchiectomy according to individual risk factors in patients with seminoma clinical stage(CS) I. * A risk-adapted approach to the treatment of seminoma stage I patients may be chosen. AUC, area under the curve;BEP, bleomycin, etoposide, cisplatin; EP, etoposide, cisplatin.
e u r o p e a n u r o l o g y 5 3 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 7 8 – 4 9 6488
Krege S et al. Eur Urol 2008 doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.024
Use Creative Commons Attribution License:
Share fulltext papers with other people in your group
Dunc
an H
ull:
http
://w
ww
.flick
r.com
/ph
otos
/dul
lhun
k/32
4995
6703
/
Author
Piled Higher and Deeper by Jorge Cham www.phdcomics.com
Jorge Cham: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1200
Impact FactorA = the number of times articles published in 2007 and 2008 were cited by indexed journals during 2009
B = the total number of "citable items" published in 2007 and 2008. ("Citable items" are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or Letters-to-the-Editor.)
2009 impact factor = A/B
Calculated (and sold) by
http://ebling.library.wisc.edu/portals/impact-factor/
Despite the challenges of the current economic climate, PLoS anticipates that revenue will continue to increase, thanks to the commitment of the research community towards PLoS and our growing publishing program. More scientists and institutions are recognizing OA as a legitimate, and frequently preferable, publica-tion vehicle, and the number of submissions to all seven PLoS journals continues to grow each month.
Improved efficiency has also contributed to the organization’s financial health. All PLoS journals are published on a single publish-ing platform called Ambra. It, in turn, is built on top of Topaz – an application that stores data in a combination of a semantic database (which holds all the metadata) and a digital repository (which stores images, xml files, etc.). By reducing outsourcing fees, PLoS has substantially reduced publishing costs.
During a time when global skepticism about financial management has reached an all-time high, PLoS takes a conservative approach in financial planning. Financial plans are driven by analytics and are based on realistic targets. Consequently, the organization’s financial position tells a solid story that inspires stakeholder confidence.
PLoS started with generous funding from the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation and has received support from many founda-tions, institutions, and individuals. The organization has invested this funding, following best-practice business principles, to create a publishing business model projected to be 100% self-sufficient in 2010.
PLoS journals use a business model that recovers expenses — including administration of peer review, journal production, and online hosting and archiving — by charging a publication fee to authors or research sponsors for each article that passes the peer-review process.
During the last three years, PLoS has seen a fivefold increase in operating revenue. As a result, the organization has dramatically increased the proportion of expenses covered by revenue. In 2007 PLoS was self-funding roughly 50% of its operating expenses. By the end of 2009, PLoS predicts that the organization’s funding model will cover approximately 90% of its operating expenses.
Increased Volume, Decreased Costs
The success of the four community journals and PLoS ONE has fueled the growth in revenue. Two of the community journals launched in 2005 — PLoS Genetics and PLoS Pathogens — are already self-sustaining, and PLoS Computational Biology and PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases are expected to cross this threshold in the future. PLoS ONE attained self-sufficiency almost immediately due to high article volume, affordable price, and cost-effective production techniques.
Financial sustainability
Operating Expense Coverage(% of operating expense covered by operating revenues)
Submitted Compared to Published Articles
“ PLoS has a key focus on issues of critical relevance for global health and health system improvement. Open access makes this even more attractive.” – Dr. Alan Lopez, Head of the School of Population Health, University of Queensland
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8.000
10,000
12,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
%
Articles submitted
Articles published
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
100
90
80
PLo
S P
rogr
ess
Rep
ort
1
0
PLoS journals
PLoS Computational Biology publishes research that furthers our understanding of living systems at all scales through the application of computational methods.
PLoS Pathogens publishes research on bacteria, fungi, parasites, prions, and viruses that contributes to our understanding of the biology of pathogens and pathogen-host interactions.
PLoS ONE is an innovative, interactive journal that publishes peer-reviewed rigorous research from all disciplines within science and medicine.
PLoS Genetics reflects the full breadth and interdisciplinary nature of genetics and genomics research by publishing original contributions in all areas of biology.
PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases is the first OA journal devoted to publishing research on all scientific, medical, and public health aspects of the forgotten diseases affecting the world’s forgotten people.
PLoS Biology features works in all areas of biological science, from molecules to ecosys-tems, including works at the interface with other disciplines, such as chemistry, medicine, and mathematics.
An official journal of the International Society for Computational Biology
PLoS Medicine publishes papers on the major challenges to human health worldwide, which have relevance across a range of settings and that address the major environmental, social, and political determinants of health, as well as the biological.
“ Working in conjunction with other advocacy groups, PLoS has been part of a small, but influential, team that has changed public policy. Today, the NIH requires everyone supported by an NIH grant to make their results publicly available in PubMed Central within one year of publication.” – Dr. Harold E. Varmus, PLoS Co-founder, Chairman of the Board
9 P
LoS Progress R
eport
PLoS Progress Report June 2009: http://www.plos.org/downloads/progress_report.pdf
PLoS ONE
Hybrid Access
http
://w
ww
.blo
odjo
urna
l.org
NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 8 | AUGUST 2009 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 611
editorial
!e scienti"c discourse is, by its very nature, open and democratic. Anyone can participate, and, based on the principles of deductive logic and experimental discovery, anyone can contribute to the process. !ere is no place for censorship in science. As an essay in the New York Times makes clear, “If we are not practicing good science, we probably aren’t practicing good democracy. And vice versa”1.
!e natural consequence of this openness in the practice of science is that all aspects of science should be open and accessible to everyone. In that spirit, several universities, including Harvard2, MIT3 and University College London4, have recently announced initiatives that aim to make the scienti"c output of their researchers freely available in public repositories.
!ese schemes are part of a more general drive towards open access in publishing, whereby authors, not readers, pay for publication costs, and access and dissemination of those papers is free. At Nature Publishing Group, we recognize these trends. Our authors of original research papers retain copyright to their work5, with important implications. For example, at Nature Materials, as well as other Nature journals, we allow authors to post presubmitted or submitted versions of a paper on preprint servers such as arXiv or Nature Precedings. We also allow these authors to reuse papers in their future printed work, and research papers can be archived in public repositories such as PubMed Central six months a#er publication. In addition, some of our academic journals, such as Molecular Systems Biology, are fully open access.
So why not implement full open access for all of our journals? Practical considerations have an important role. According to Journal Citation Reports (!omson Reuters), in 2007 we published 133 research papers (including review articles). Subscription-based Advanced Materials published 736 items, and the open-access journal Optics Express published 1961 papers, with publication fees starting from $925 per paper. From
such statistics it is obvious that, assuming simple economics of scale, a switch to an author-pays model in our case would incur signi"cant publication fees per paper published.
In addition, at every stage of manuscript handling we provide an expensive, high-quality service. !is not only involves the professional subediting and production of accepted papers, but also an exhaustive prescreening of submitted manuscripts. At Nature Materials, we prescreen well above 80% of submitted manuscripts without peer review. !is means that, at a cost, we rely much less on the ‘free’ peer-reviewing services of scientists than journals with lower screening rates.
As open access certainly should not be considered as a way to lower publication standards, the overall expenses related to the dissemination of scienti"c results should be considered so that the costs remain the same. !is means that research-intensive institutions in particular (or those paying for their research grants) may well end up paying proportionally more under author-pays models than they would under subscription-based models. Researchers from less research-intensive institutions on the other hand would bene"t.
Of course, even in a subscription-based model, science needs to be open, and researchers from less-developed countries in particular should not be disadvantaged by being asked to pay beyond their means for journal subscriptions. For that reason, Nature Publishing Group is in partnership with a number of initiatives that provide free access to journal content to scientists from such countries6.
E$orts like these, in addition to the freedom that we grant to our authors in making their research available in public repositories a#er a reasonable amount of
time, illustrate that the choice between open access and a subscription-based
approach is more a matter of having a sustainable business
model, rather than that of a fundamentally di$erent point of view. Sharing our entire publication costs among only 133 authors, rather than thousands of subscribing individuals and institutions,
certainly does not seem feasible.
As for the open-access resolutions by universities such as Harvard and MIT, at present we do not wish to accept any addenda to our author licence, because, as
outlined above, we already provide comprehensive
rights to our authors. Instead, before publication we ask authors from those institutions to provide us with an exemption to their policy, as foreseen in these open-access resolutions.
At Nature Publishing Group we will continue to deliver free services to the scienti"c community, ranging from our social networking website Nature Network, to reference-management tools such as Connotea, as well as weekly podcasts. To further strengthen our engagement with our own research community, Nature Materials editorials are now freely available to any registered user of our website. !is follows a similar decision taken at Nature some years ago. !e free access also applies to our back catalogue of editorials, and we hope you enjoy reading them, whether through a subscription or through free online access!
References1. www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html2. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/34623. http://web.mit.edu/newso%ce/2009/open-access-0320.html4. www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/OpenAccess5. www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html6. www.nature.com/info/partners.html
As moves towards open-access schemes gain momentum, the choice between ‘author pays’ and subscription-based models may come down to fundamental business considerations rather than limits in access to original research.
Science in the open
© IS
TOCK
PHO
TO /
PAT
RYK
GA
LKA
nmat_2497_AUG09.indd 611 10/7/09 09:29:23
NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 8 | AUGUST 2009 | www.nature.com/naturematerials 611
editorial
!e scienti"c discourse is, by its very nature, open and democratic. Anyone can participate, and, based on the principles of deductive logic and experimental discovery, anyone can contribute to the process. !ere is no place for censorship in science. As an essay in the New York Times makes clear, “If we are not practicing good science, we probably aren’t practicing good democracy. And vice versa”1.
!e natural consequence of this openness in the practice of science is that all aspects of science should be open and accessible to everyone. In that spirit, several universities, including Harvard2, MIT3 and University College London4, have recently announced initiatives that aim to make the scienti"c output of their researchers freely available in public repositories.
!ese schemes are part of a more general drive towards open access in publishing, whereby authors, not readers, pay for publication costs, and access and dissemination of those papers is free. At Nature Publishing Group, we recognize these trends. Our authors of original research papers retain copyright to their work5, with important implications. For example, at Nature Materials, as well as other Nature journals, we allow authors to post presubmitted or submitted versions of a paper on preprint servers such as arXiv or Nature Precedings. We also allow these authors to reuse papers in their future printed work, and research papers can be archived in public repositories such as PubMed Central six months a#er publication. In addition, some of our academic journals, such as Molecular Systems Biology, are fully open access.
So why not implement full open access for all of our journals? Practical considerations have an important role. According to Journal Citation Reports (!omson Reuters), in 2007 we published 133 research papers (including review articles). Subscription-based Advanced Materials published 736 items, and the open-access journal Optics Express published 1961 papers, with publication fees starting from $925 per paper. From
such statistics it is obvious that, assuming simple economics of scale, a switch to an author-pays model in our case would incur signi"cant publication fees per paper published.
In addition, at every stage of manuscript handling we provide an expensive, high-quality service. !is not only involves the professional subediting and production of accepted papers, but also an exhaustive prescreening of submitted manuscripts. At Nature Materials, we prescreen well above 80% of submitted manuscripts without peer review. !is means that, at a cost, we rely much less on the ‘free’ peer-reviewing services of scientists than journals with lower screening rates.
As open access certainly should not be considered as a way to lower publication standards, the overall expenses related to the dissemination of scienti"c results should be considered so that the costs remain the same. !is means that research-intensive institutions in particular (or those paying for their research grants) may well end up paying proportionally more under author-pays models than they would under subscription-based models. Researchers from less research-intensive institutions on the other hand would bene"t.
Of course, even in a subscription-based model, science needs to be open, and researchers from less-developed countries in particular should not be disadvantaged by being asked to pay beyond their means for journal subscriptions. For that reason, Nature Publishing Group is in partnership with a number of initiatives that provide free access to journal content to scientists from such countries6.
E$orts like these, in addition to the freedom that we grant to our authors in making their research available in public repositories a#er a reasonable amount of
time, illustrate that the choice between open access and a subscription-based
approach is more a matter of having a sustainable business
model, rather than that of a fundamentally di$erent point of view. Sharing our entire publication costs among only 133 authors, rather than thousands of subscribing individuals and institutions,
certainly does not seem feasible.
As for the open-access resolutions by universities such as Harvard and MIT, at present we do not wish to accept any addenda to our author licence, because, as
outlined above, we already provide comprehensive
rights to our authors. Instead, before publication we ask authors from those institutions to provide us with an exemption to their policy, as foreseen in these open-access resolutions.
At Nature Publishing Group we will continue to deliver free services to the scienti"c community, ranging from our social networking website Nature Network, to reference-management tools such as Connotea, as well as weekly podcasts. To further strengthen our engagement with our own research community, Nature Materials editorials are now freely available to any registered user of our website. !is follows a similar decision taken at Nature some years ago. !e free access also applies to our back catalogue of editorials, and we hope you enjoy reading them, whether through a subscription or through free online access!
References1. www.nytimes.com/2009/01/27/science/27essa.html2. http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/node/34623. http://web.mit.edu/newso%ce/2009/open-access-0320.html4. www.ucl.ac.uk/media/library/OpenAccess5. www.nature.com/authors/editorial_policies/license.html6. www.nature.com/info/partners.html
As moves towards open-access schemes gain momentum, the choice between ‘author pays’ and subscription-based models may come down to fundamental business considerations rather than limits in access to original research.
Science in the open
© IS
TOCK
PHO
TO /
PAT
RYK
GA
LKA
nmat_2497_AUG09.indd 611 10/7/09 09:29:23Papers published per year
Readers per paper
Expensive services (e.g. prescreening by professional editors, subediting)
doi:10.1038/nmat2497
The process of submitting a manuscript to a biomedical journal is time-consuming, requires skills that most scientists are not trained in, and is not standardized.
The submission of an accepted manuscript to an institutional repository (green OA) is additional work with many of the same characteristics.
Publication charges (2009)Nature Communications (starts 2010) 5.000 $
PLoS Medicine 2.900 $
EMBO Journal 2.795 $
Blood 2.000 $
BMC Cancer 1.690 $
PLoS ONE 1.200 $
BMJ 0 $
Cancer Research (subscription access) charges $75 for submission and $85 per page for accepted manuscripts
by 64% (21% to 121%). Longer articles, articles withmore references, and those published in journals withhigher impact factors had significantly more down-loads.Twenty instances of self archiving could be identi-
fied, of which 18 were final copies from the publisherand twowere authors’ finalmanuscripts.Theestimatedeffect of self archivingwas positive on PDFdownloads,although non-significant (6%, !6% to 19%; P=0.36),and essentially zero for full text downloads (!1%,!23%to 27%; P=0.95).Of the 247 articles randomly assigned to open access
status, 59% (n=146) were cited after 9-12 monthscompared with 63% (859 of 1372) of subscriptionaccess articles.
The negative binomial regression model estimatedthat open access reduced expected citation counts by5% (incident rate ratio 0.95, 95% confidence interval0.81 to 1.10; P=0.484) and that self archiving reducedexpected citation counts by about 10% (0.90, 0.53 to1.55; P=0.716), although neither of these estimates aresignificantly different from zero (table 3).A supplementary logistic regression analysis based
on the same set of variables for articles estimated thatopen access publishing reduced the expected odds ofbeing cited by about 13% (odds ratio 0.87, 95%confidence interval 0.66 to 1.17; P=0.36, see supple-mentary table at http://hdl.handle.net/1813/11049),although this effect was not statistically significant.
DISCUSSION
Strong evidence suggests that open access increases thereadershipof articles but has no effect on the number ofcitations in the first year after publication. Thesefindings were based on a randomised controlled trialof 11 journalspublishedby theAmericanPhysiologicalSociety.Although we undoubtedly missed a substantial
amount of citation activity that occurred after theseinitial months, we believe that our time frame wassufficient to detect a citation advantage, if one exists. Astudyof author sponsoredopenaccess in theProceedingsof the National Academies of Sciences reported large,significant differences in only four to 10 months afterpublication.15 Future analysis will test whether ourconclusions hold over a longer observation period.Previous studies have relied on retrospective and
uncontrolled methods to study the effects of openaccess. As a result they may have confused causes andeffects (open access may be the result of more citablepapers being made freely available) or have beenunable to control for the effect of multiple unmeasuredvariables. A randomised controlled design enabled ustomeasuremore accurately the effect of open access on
Incr
ease
in d
ownl
oads
and
vis
itor
s (%
)
Abstract-40
40
80
120
0
Full text PDF Unique visitors
Fig 2 | Percentage differences (95% confidence intervals) indownloads of open access articles (n=247) and subscriptionaccess articles (n=1371) during the first six months afterpublication. Downloads from known internet robots areexcluded
Table 2 | Linear regression output reporting independentvariable effects on PDF downloads for sixmonths afterpublication
Variables% Regression
coefficient (95% CI) P value
Fixed effect coefficient:
Open access 43 (34 to 53) <0.001
Cover article 64 (21 to 121) 0.001
Press release 65 (7 to 156) 0.024
Self archived 6 (!6 to 19) 0.361
Review article 100 (74 to 131) <0.001
Methods article 6 (!12 to 28%) 0.509
Any author from USA 0 (!5 to 5) 0.950
No of authors* 5 (0 to 10) 0.069
No of references* 23 (13 to 35) <0.001
Article length (pages)* 17 (5 to 31) 0.005
Journal impact factor* 59 (28 to 97) 0.000
Intercept 1627 (1035 to 2529) <0.001
Random effects coefficient:
Journal 2 (0 to 5)† 9‡
Issue 0 (0 to 1)† 1‡
Residual 28 (26 to 30)† 90‡
Total 31‡ 100‡
F31, 1350=37.5, P<0.001, R2=0.42.
*Log transformed.†Variance component (%) (95% confidence interval).‡Percentage of variance explained.
Table 3 | Negative binomial regression output reportingindependent variable effects on citations to articles aged9 to12months
Coefficient Incidence rate ratio (95%CI) P value
Open access 0.95 (0.81 to 1.10) 0.484
Cover article 0.93 (0.52 to 1.64) 0.789
Press release 1.23 (0.50 to 3.05) 0.654
Self archived 0.90 (0.53 to 1.55) 0.716
Review article 1.34 (1.01 to 1.78) 0.041
Methods article 0.62 (0.37 to 1.06) 0.079
Any author from USA 1.17 (1.04 to 1.32) 0.007
No of authors* 1.13 (1.01 to 1.26) 0.030
No of references* 1.42 (1.17 to 1.72) <0.001
Article length (pages)* 1.09 (0.86 to 1.38) 0.483
Journal impact factor* 1.39 (1.10 to 1.76) 0.006
Issue 1.26 (1.20 to 1.33) <0.001
!212, 1607=313.14, P<0.001, pseudo R2=0.06, " for dispersion 0.43 (95%confidence interval 0.35 to 0.54).*Log transformed.
RESEARCH
page 4 of 6 BMJ | ONLINE FIRST | bmj.com
Davis PM et al. Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2008.
doi:10.1136/bmj.a568
Open Access vs. subscription access articles during the first six months after publication
no difference
in citations
Outlook
First issue April 2010, accepts submissions since October 2009
Aims for papers similar to Nature, but without the same broad impact
Hybrid publishing model, costs calculated for 100% Open Access
Online only, no editorials, news, etc.
Press Release Nr. 57 (October 13, 2009)
Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) baut ihre Unterstützung des Open-Access-Publizierens konsequent aus. Universitäten können künftig bei der DFG Mittel beantragen, um Publikationen ihrer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler in originären Open-Access-Zeitschriften zu finanzieren.
24
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
!"#$%#"&' ())*#+,-./' 01#+' 2,-#""#-3#'4-,--5' 6)%.-' 4."&' 7)+48$#+' &,+,9:' ,";#!<.#4#"='2,-#"='>9#??#"'9"&'7)+48$9";4!#+;#1".44#' %@;?.8$4-' )$"#' +#8$-?.8$#='
01#+'&,4' A"-#+"#-'"9-3#"' 39'(@""#"5' A"'&.#4#%'6.""#':@+&#+-'B*#"'C88#44'".8$-'"9+' &.#' ."-#+",-.)",?#' D#+"#-39";' &#+'E.44#"48$,:-=' 4)"&#+"' -+F;-' ,98$' 39'#."#+' 1#44#+#"'E,$+"#$%9";' #9+)*F.!48$#+'7)+48$9";'<#?-<#.-'1#.5
D)+'&.#4#%'G."-#+;+9"&'9"-#+4-0-3-'&.#' !"#$%&'"( )*+%&'#,-%-"."/,%&'01$(2!)34',?4'H+4-9"-#+3#.8$"#+."'&#+'5"+6/7,"+( 8+96:+#,-' &#"' #"-;#?-:+#.#"' I9;,";'39' <.44#"48$,:-?.8$#%' E.44#"' &9+8$'
!#"=' 39+' H"-<.8(?9";' /)"' J#*)4.-)+.#"!1,4.#+-#"' K#$+<#+-&.#"4-#"=' &9+8$'
B*#"!C88#44!I#.-48$+.:-#"' 4)<.#' &9+8$'&.#'L#<F$+9";'/)"'M91?.(,-.)"4()4-#"5'I9&#%':@+&#+-#'&.#'!)3A":)+%,-.)"4*?,--:)+%' B*#"' C88#44='&.#' ,?4' ",-.)",?#'C"?,9:4-#??#' 4F%-?.8$#'7,8#--#"' ' #"-;#?-:+#.#"' M91?.3.#+#"4'9%:,44#"&'&,+4-#??-5'2.#'C(-./.-F-#"',9:'",-.)",?#+'H1#"#'<#+&#"'#+;F"3-'&9+8$';#%#."4,%#'D)+$,1#"'9"&'M+)N#(-#' .%'#9+)*F.48$#"'O%:#?&=' ."41#4)"&#+#'%.-'&#"' M,+-"#+"' ' ;,*<6"=-"( 8>&'0,-"'P#-3<#+(45
A%' Q,"9,+' RSST' /#+,148$.#&#-#' &#+'G,9*-,9448$944'&#+'!)3'J.8$-?.".#"='%.-'&#"#"'M+)N#(-"#$%#+'&#+'!)3',9:;#:)+!&#+-'<#+&#"='",8$'K@;?.8$(#.-' ."'B*#"!C88#44!I#.-48$+.:-#"'39'*91?.3.#+#"')&#+'.$+#' M91?.(,-.)"#"' 394F-3?.8$' 01#+' J#!*)4.-)+.#"'1#+#.-394-#??#"5'2#""'&.#'!)3'
„erwartet, dass die mit ihren Mitteln finan-
zierten Forschungsergebnisse publiziert und
dabei möglichst auch digital veröffentlicht und
für den entgeltfreien Zugriff im Internet (Open
Access) verfügbar gemacht werden.“
U>9#??#V' D#+<#"&9";4+.8$-?.".#"'6,8$1#.$.?:#W5
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) ist die -
Franzen JL et al. PLoS ONE 2009 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
Special thanks to Peter Binfield, Phil Vaughan, Lesley Anson,
Cameron Neylon, Victor Henning, Richard Grant, Heinz Pampel and
Graham Steel