PLoS Currents

Once again this week I've found myself drawn to the topic of data sharing. In this case, I've discovered PLoS Currents, a beta version of a service that is described as "a moderated collection for rapid and open sharing of useful new scientific data, analyses, and ideas." This particular PLoS Currents forum is dedicated to the H1N1 influenza virus (aka swine flu). The purpose of PLoS currents is to allow for expeditious communication between experts on pertinent issues to enable rapid advancements in these areas. A forum such as this is a novel way to approach time-sensitive issues such as the swine flu epidemic by presenting a setting in which scientists can share their data, research, and theories without the high level of peer review required by scholarly journals.

Anyone can submit to the PLoS currents colloquium. Publication and review of submissions are done via the Google Knol software. First, an author assembles their content at the Google Knol site. There it can be shared with other users at the author's discretion. Once ready, the author submits the content to PLoS currents, and it is reviewed by the moderators. This panel of experts in the field decide whether or not a given submission is "intelligent, relevant, and suitable." All accepted submissions are made available on the PLoS Currents: Influenza website, and publicly archived at the National Center for Biotechnology Information.

One key to achieving the goals put forth by the creators of PLoS currents is the idea of openness. All content on PLoS currents is openly accessible, and is made available under a Creative Commons attribution license. Another key is speed. Work submitted to PLoS currents is quickly screened (though the exact time frame is not specified) by a panel of expert moderators, but is not subjected to the intense level of peer review required for acceptance by a scholarly journal. The contents of PLoS currents are not considered to be formal publications, but are citable. Every accepted PLoS currents submission receives a permanent identifier that can be linked to and cited. And, as mentioned above, submissions are archived at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Since acceptance by PLoS currents is not considered formal publication, the same content can be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

The idea of PLoS currents is interesting because it takes to heart the ideal of open science , and attempts to exploit it in pursuit of something that we mentioned in class last week, namely the greater good. Indeed, the greater good seems to be what the creators of PLoS currents had in mind when founding the project. In response to the FAQ "Why should researchers submit content to PLoS Currents: Influenza?" the creators write that "researchers submitting results to PLoS Currents: Influenza will also be contributing to a global effort to respond to the recent emergence of H1N1 influenza and to the urgent and ever-present public health threat posed by influenza." The greater good also seems to be the chief driving force behind submission. Since publication on PLoS currents is not considered formal publication, it cannot count toward tenure. And acceptance by PLoS currents is no guarantee of acceptance by any of the journals published by PLoS. The only advantage (apart from benefitting the greater good) of publishing on PLoS currents that I can discern is that one's work will be made available to a larger audience, and that its preservation will be ensured due to being archived at the National Center for Biotechnology Information. Of course, the same benefits can be achieved through publishing, so I suppose that only those authors who, for want of acceptance, have not published in an academic journal would find these benefits attractive.