The debate over whether a free online repository of the primary scientific literature is a desirable goal, and what form such a repository should take, has recently gathered significant momentum. Gaining particular press of late has been the publication of an open letter from a newly formed advocacy group, the The Public Library of Science -- a letter that many have interpreted as a call for a boycott against publishers who opt out of making research papers available on the U.S. government's biomedical archive, PubMed Central. Science has actively encouraged this debate, having published Editorial and Policy Forum features tracking the development of the PubMed Central idea -- and, more recently, a point-counterpoint discussion stoked by the PLS initiative. Adding a lively supplement to these print publications have been reader responses published both in print and through our online discussion forum, dEbates. We encourage readers to browse the selections below -- and, by following links to our dEbates feature, to join this evolving discussion on one of the more consequential policy issues facing contemporary science.

Published in Science The Recent Debate Viewpoint: Building a "GenBank" for the Published Literature R. J. Roberts, H. E. Varmus, M. Ashburner, P. O. Brown, M. B. Eisen, C. Khosla, M. Kirschner, R. Nusse, M. Scott, B. Wold Citing examples ranging from the great library of Alexandria to PubMed Central, Roberts et al., in their 23 March 2001 Viewpoint, "urge journal publishers, their editors, and all working scientists to join together to create public, electronic archives of the scientific literature, containing complete copies of all published scientific papers." Science's Response: Is a Government Archive the Best Option? In their 23 March 2001 response to Roberts et al., the editors of Science raise some economic and political objections to centralized, government-run repositories such as PubMed Central -- particularly for cash-strapped scientific specialty societies -- and argue that, notwithstanding the support of distinguished scientists, the proposal's "potential consequences require careful analysis and policy debate." Letters on the Debate Published responses to the 23 March 2001 exchange: Considerations in Creating Online Archives, I. Mellman, Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Cell Biology For Free Access, Follow the Brick Red Buttons, N. R. Cozzarelli, Editor-in-Chief, PNAS Online Discussion Science Online's dEbates section has provided an outlet for additional opinions on this key topic. To get an idea of the range of perspectives out there, check out the responses to the Roberts et al. Viewpoint and the Science editors' response. Then, join the discussion by clicking the "Submit a response" link. And previously in Science . . . Who Should Own Scientific Papers? S. Bachrach, R. S. Berry, M. Blume, T. von Foerster, A. Fowler, P. Ginsparg, S. Heller, N. Kestner, A. Odlyzko, A. Okerson, R. Wigington, A. Moffat An early set of proposals, by the "Transition from Paper" working group, related to online posting of scientific articles, published as a Policy Forum in the 4 September 1998 issue of Science. Just a Minute, Please F. E. Bloom Editorial published on 9 July 1999 by Science's editor-in-chief, discussing the then recently floated idea of PubMed Central. (Also, check out reader responses to the editorial.) Other Online Resources The Public Library of Science Advocacy group pressing for "the establishment of international online public libraries of science that contain the complete text of all published scientific articles in searchable and interlinked formats" -- and available free of charge or access restrictions. Site includes draft of the group's controversial open letter, as well as the PLS reply to Science's editorial response, "Is a Government Archive the Best Option?", published on 23 March 2001 (see above). Response to the PLS Letter from the American Society for Microbiology The Society, after giving "careful consideration to the ideology and requirements proposed for the Public Library of Science," finds them "too extreme and unrealistic for ASM to support." Boycott! Frank Gannon, Senior Editor, EMBO Reports In the 15 March 2001 edition of EMBO Reports, Gannon looks at the potential consequences of the proposed PLS boycott, and suggests that, in addressing the question of how best to disseminate scientific research "the methods and language that are employed must be tailored to match the complexity of the situation." Nature Debates: Future E-Access to the Primary Literature Online collection of opinions from a variety of affected parties, including librarians, editors, publishers, and database managers, compiled by the editors of Nature.