Biocurious is a weblog about biology through the eyes of physicists. More...
Academics
Andre's Research
Biocuriosities
Books
Graduate School
History of Science
Hot off the Press
Igor's Research
Interdisciplinarity
Molecule of the Month
Open Access
Philip's Research
Philosophy of Science
Physics
Physicsworld.com
Backreaction
Ceclia's Blog at PHD Comics
Cocktail Party Physics
Cosmic Variance
The Daily Transcript
Easternblot
Everyday Scientist
The Evilutionary Biologist
Evolgen
Freelancing Science
The Futile Cycle
Good Math, Bad Math
iMechanica
in singulo
Incoherently Scattered Ponderings
Juniorprof
Life of a Lab Rat
The Loom
Malletrivia
Metadatta
Mixed States
Not Even Wrong
Notes from the biomass
Notional Slurry
OpenScience Project
Pharyngula
PLoS Blog
Ponderings of a fool
Recombinants
The Sandwalk
SciAm Observations
ScienceBlogs
Shtetl-Optimized
Three-toed Sloth
Uncertain Principles
What's New by Bob Park



This week’s editorial in the journal Nature announces a move towards greater access for papers reporting complete genomes. Papers that report “the primary sequence of an organism’s genome for the first time” will be immediately available online but more interestingly, they will be released using a creative commons attribution-non-commercial-share alike license (similar to what we use for Biocurious). For more details on Nature’s licensing arrangements you can check the license information page.
Their reasoning is that this type of genome paper “represent[s] the completion of a key and fundamental research resource, describing and reflecting on what has been revealed but not usually providing insights into mechanism.” This makes perfect sense and papers reporting complete genomes are likely extremes in this sense, but even if a paper includes insight into mechanisms it doesn’t mean the work is done and that more access to its data wouldn’t still be beneficial.
It’s also noteworthy that Nature Publishing Group already publishes a freely available journal called Molecular Systems Biology that has also recently moved towards creative commons licenses (although authors still have the option of choosing to forbid derivative works). For a discussion of their decision (in response to this PLoS Biology editorial?) see the MSB blog.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.