Practitioner’s Perspective: Science as a Public Resource: Rules of Engagement

  • Liza Gross
Part of the Sociology of the Sciences Yearbook book series (SOSC, volume 28)


Advances in information and digital technology have made it possible for anyone, anywhere with access to a computer to download millions of published scientific papers, creating the opportunity for a virtual public library of science. For too long, barriers to accessing that information have denied researchers, educators, consumers, and citizens the opportunity to benefit from this growing body of knowledge. The Public Library of Science became an “open access” publisher to remove those barriers by ensuring free and unrestricted access to the scientific and medical literature. PLoS also sought to change the very definition of “the scientific community” by providing the general public with the educational resources to better understand technical scientific papers and by creating Web-based tools that invite the general public to join discussions and debates surrounding the scientific literature. Such tools are especially important in an environment where scientists feel pressure to “do science by press release,” exaggerating the implications of study results to gain publicity and status. Editors at PLoS take pains to ensure that press releases describe the principal findings of published results without sensationalizing the implications of the work, hoping to prevent the sensationalized news stories that distort not only the significance of the findings at hand but the very nature of scientific progress.


Public Library Open Access Journal Unrestricted Access Page View Individual Article 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bernstein, P., B. Cohen, C. MacCallum, et al. (2003). PLoS Biology – We’re open. PLoS Biology, 1(1), e34. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.000003.pbio.0000034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown, P. O., M. B. Eisen, and H. E. Varmus (2003). Why PLoS became a publisher. PLoS Biology, 1(1), e36. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0000036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Franzen, J. L., P. D. Gingerich, J. Habersetzer, et al. (2009). Complete primate skeleton from the middle Eocene of Messel in Germany: Morphology and paleobiology. PLoS One, 4(5), e5723. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Joseph, H. D. (2008). Testimony on behalf of the Scholarly Publishing and Academic Resources Coalition (SPARC) alliance for taxpayer access association of research libraries before the subcommittee on courts, the internet, and intellectual property committee on the judiciary regarding H.R 6845, The fair copyright in research works act. (last accessed on August 19, 2010).
  5. Leake, J. and J. Harlow (2009). Origin of the specious – Times Online. London: The Sunday Times. (last accessed on August 19, 2010).Google Scholar
  6. Neylon, C. and S. Wu (2009). Article-level metrics and the evolution of scientific impact. PLoS Biology, 7(11), e1000242. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1000242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Rowe, S. B. (2000). Food for thought: An in-depth look at how the media report. nutrition, food safety, and health. AMWA Journal, 15(4), 5–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.PLoS Biology

Personalised recommendations