Software. PLoS supports the development of open source software and believes that, for submissions in which software is the central part of the paper, adherence to appropriate open source standards will ensure that the submission conforms to (1) our requirements that methods be described in sufficient detail that another researcher can reproduce the experiments described, (2) our aim to promote openness in research, and (3) our intention that all work published in PLoS journals can be built upon by future researchers. Therefore, if new software or a new algorithm is central to a PLoS paper, the authors must confirm that the software conforms to the Open Source Definition, have deposited the following three items in an open software archive, and included in the submission as Supporting Information:
</quote>
One of the new Journals in BiomedCentral,
http://www.openresearchcomputation.com/about
which is also Open Access,
developed a similar policy:
<quote>
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 2:49 PM, Oz Nahum Tiram <nahumoz@gmail.com> wrote:There is a link, probably you may access (temporarily) to read if you
> Hi All,
> Indeed strong words, published in Nature where you need to pay $32 to
> read what we all know already.
are interested.
https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B93SVRfpVVg3aW0tX3RLanRKdUE
Best regards,
> Archive: [🔎] CADKMUwm_iJLK15dLaK142u8Si2Fpqe4PtrX6oUmUTztHkR7yZg@mail.gmail.com" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] CADKMUwm_iJLK15dLaK142u8Si2Fpqe4PtrX6oUmUTztHkR7yZg@mail.gmail.com>
> Regards,
> Oz
>
> On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 8:00 AM, Andreas Tille <andreas@an3as.eu> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> you might like to read:
>>
>> The case for open computer programs
>> Darrel C. Ince, Leslie Hatton & John Graham-Cumming
>>
>> Scientific communication relies on evidence that cannot be entirely
>> included in publications, but the rise of computational science has
>> added a new layer of inaccessibility. Although it is now accepted that
>> data should be made available on request, the current regulations
>> regarding the availability of software are inconsistent. We argue that,
>> with some exceptions, anything less than the release of source programs
>> is intolerable for results that depend on computation. The vagaries of
>> hardware, software and natural language will always ensure that exact
>> reproducibility remains uncertain, but withholding code increases the
>> chances that efforts to reproduce results will fail.
>>
>> http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v482/n7386/full/nature10836.html
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>>
>> Andreas.
>>
>> --
>> http://fam-tille.de
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: [🔎] 20120529060057.GC18760@an3as.eu" target="_blank">http://lists.debian.org/[🔎] 20120529060057.GC18760@an3as.eu
>>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-science-request@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
>Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAG9cJmk0LPYhsWnZQ0u2OFdXaTAsXF5K1H+kWsaBi4WxqEuZQ@mail.gmail.com
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-med-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org