Does anyone else think that it’s ironic that Peter Suber, open access guru, appears to have written an article on open access in toll barred Nature Geoscience?

I don’t know what it says, because I’m not about to pay $18 to read it, but I assume I’d like what he wrote …

comments (3)

Adrian Kybett (on Wednesday 04 March, 2009)

It seems to be a quick letter to the editor:

From the editorial ‘Globalizing quake information’ (Nature Geosci. 1, 803; 2008), I could not tell whether the Global Earthquake Model (GEM) requires participating nations to open their data sets. If it does not, then I hope GEM will reconsider and call for open data, to allow independent investigators to test or replicate the GEM analyses. If the output reports are always open, as GEM promises, then specialists could probably infer the broad contours of the input data from these reports, even if the input data are not open themselves. Hence, nations unwilling to make their data public may be unwilling to participate in the project even with closed data. If so, then the GEM needs to make the argument for open data as part of its case for worldwide participation.

Adrian Kybett (on Wednesday 04 March, 2009)

PS There’s a reply from GEM “The most enduring value of the GEM will be its open data, models and software” referring to

Bryan (on Wednesday 04 March, 2009) Thanks Adrian!