ааа No one can say that scientists didnТt do anything to change this hard situation.

аааа At 1991, Paul Ginsparg established an Internet server, arxiv.org, to which physicists could post digital copies of their manuscripts prior to publication. Not long ago a critical paper лVital resource should be open to all physicists. Putting control in the hands of a few can enforce orthodoxy and stifle innovative ideas.╗ was published at the Nature Ф (433, p.800, 2005; paragraph УCorrespondenceФ). This paper was devoted to the publication policy of theа arXiv. Nobel Prize laureate in the physics Brian D. Josephson (Department of Physics,

University of Cambridge,Cambridge, UK) is the author of the paper. His paper contains Paul Ginsparg reply to the criticism of the arxiv.org publication policy (published at the Nature 432, 428Ц429; 2004) and JosephsonТs notes. It was reported that Paul Ginsparg said that лarchive is designed for communication among research professionals, not as a mechanism

аfor outsiders to communicate to that community╗. Professor Josephson think that rejection of the papers of some scientists is deliberate violation of the rights of other scientists. He stated that deliberate rejection (by means of arXiv moderator) of the papers of some distinguishedа physicist take place at the server arXiv, because they Уwas not intimately familiar with the work in questionФ.а Professor Josephson believes that лRadical changes are required in the way the archive is administered.╗. аThe members of our initiative group think that the present policy of the arXiv server cheapened all positive initiatives underlying in the server development. In the accordance to the УlogicФ of the Mr. Paul Ginsparg any, even most famous, scientist (like Einstein)а have not possibility to publish their papers in the server, because they arenТt the members of the closed community arXiv.org. WeТd like to say to the server leaders the following words: УDear colleagues, you just become presumptuous and you must think over your behaviourФ. Our caricature, concerned with the policy of the arXiv.org server you can find in the picture. Thus, one canТt say about the possibility of the free papers publications at the arXiv server now.

ааа At 1996,а the World Conference лScience for the Twenty-first Century: A New Commitment╗ took place in Budapest under the aegis of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) and the International Council for Science (ICSU). In this Conference Declaration it was indicated that: лMost of the benefits of science are unevenly distributed, as a result of structural asymmetries among countries, regions and social groups, and between the sexes. As scientific knowledge has become a crucial factor in the production of wealth, so its distribution has become more inequitable. What distinguishes the poor (be it people or countries) from the rich is not only that they have fewer assets, but also that they are largely excluded from the creation and the benefits of scientific knowledge.╗. The Conference participants recommended лЕThe building of scientific capacity should be supported by regional and international cooperation, to ensure both equitable development and the spread and utilization of human creativity without discrimination of any kind against countries, groups or individuals. Cooperation between developed and developing countries should be carried out in conformity with the principles of full and open access to information, equity and mutual benefit. Progress in science requires various types of cooperation at and between the intergovernmental, governmental and non-governmental levels, such as: Е research networks; .. programmes to facilitate the exchange of knowledge; .. The use of information and communication technology, particularly through networking, should be expanded as a means of promoting the free flow of knowledge╗.

ааа In 1999, Dr. Harold Varmus, then-director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), presented an ambitious proposal for NIH to develop and operate an electronic publishing site that would provide barrier-free access to the peer-reviewed and pre-peer-reviewed life sciences literature. The plan evolved considerably in a year of vigorous public discussion. The result, PubMed Central (PMC), was launched in February 2000 with content from the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and Molecular Biology of the Cell. To allay publishers' concerns about lost revenues, participating publishers were not required to deposit material immediately upon publication, with most opting for a delay of between six months and a year. Despite these allowances, few journals followed PNAS and MBC in joining PMC. Many publishers expressed opposition to the venture, and lobbying efforts were initiated to have PMC funding cut off.

The Public Library of Science (PLoS), a coalition of research scientists dedicated to making the world's scientific and medical literature a public resource, was founded in October 2000. Our first action was to encourage scientific publishers to make the archival scientific research literature available for distribution through free online public libraries of science. We circulated an open letter calling on scientific publishers to make the primary research articles they publish available through online public libraries of science such as PubMed Central. The open letter was signed by nearly 34,000 scientists from 180 countries.

This initiative was progressive and useful for all scientific community, undoubtedly. Only 7 usual and electronic scientific journals responded to aforesaid call to April 2001.а Many publishers categorically donТt want to share their information and send it to another site even if they make it public (on their site) after some time. Publishers were confused. They understood that their journals circulations will decrease if such archive start to work (some scientists think that it isnТt true). Journals УNatureФ and УScienceФ organized electronic discussions at their sites. Some publishers think to change their work model: take money from authors, but not from readers. Unfortunately, we must to establish the fact that PLos decided to take money from the papers authors.а In the PLoS official information, located at the page УFrequently Asked QuestionsФ (http://www.plos.org/faq.html) at the answer, concerned with a question УWhy should I have to pay to publish my paper?Фа it is indicated that: УIt costs money to produce a peer-reviewed, edited, and formatted article that is ready for online publication, and to host it on a server that is accessible around the clock. Prior to that, a public or private funding agency has already paid a great deal more money for the research to be undertaken in the interest of the public. This real cost of "producing" a paper can be calculated by dividing your laboratory's annual budget by the number of papers published. We ask that--as a small part of the cost of doing the research--the author, institution, or funding agency pays a modest fee, $1500, to help cover the actual cost of the essential final step, the publication. (As it stands, authors now often pay for publication in the form of page or color charges.) Endorsing the view that biomedical research should published in a manner that is accessible without barriers, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute has committed to supplementing publication costs (of up to US$3000 per year) for the scientists whose work it funds, so long as the work is published in an open-access journal.Ф

We can estimate the preparedness of the PLoS organizers to accept (without any fee) papers if authors have not possibility to pay publishing fees (see http://www.plos.org/faq.html answer to the question УWhat if I can't afford publication charges?Ф), but we believe that both papers publication and their access must be free for anyone.а The possibility of such УimpossibleФ variant of events is described at our proposals.

We sincerely pity that such grandiose project (that organizers were supported by big number of scientists) had such finish, that wasnТt expected by scientists.

ааа From finish of 20 age to now, big number of different Internet sites were created. These sites give different services to all peoples (papers publication, free access to scientific papers). We must agree that some time such publications are blunt forgeries. However, there are big number really interesting, progressive papers. Shoots of new, progressive and democratic science carve its way. Unfortunately they are disconnected yet. The problem consist, also, in the fact that leaders of so called лofficial science╗ donТt consider all independent scientific online publications as scientific publications. The лofficial science╗ bureaucrats think that the have the exclusive right on the scientific truth. Such position is simply ridiculous. All such facts can be laughable if they were not sorrowful. The лofficial science╗ bureaucrats vastly impede the scientific and social progress by means of their лscientific╗ degrees, high positions and links in government fields. аThey force all scientists to publish their papers in journals controlled by them (bureaucrats), because they (bureaucrats) donТt want consider independent online scientific papers as scientific papers. It is the way to save bureaucrats leading positions at the Уofficial scienceФ. It is the way, also, to support (by means of money) commercial УscientificФ publishers which take a lot of money from readers and scientists and which hamper to the free publications of scientific papers and to the free access to the scientific information. One kind of evil supports another kind of evil. The backstage conspiracy between so called Уscientific eliteФ and УscientificФ publishers takes place. аNow these peoples continue to support such conditions that are useful for them only. By means of their efforts the present situation in the лofficial science╗ resembles medieval obscurantism (at the inquisition age) and total depression. аThey understand the inefficiency of their system and try to reform it without any consequences for themselves. Such efforts are completely hopeless and doomed to the failure. The present УreformФ of the system of science and education in Russia is the excellent example of such УreformФ. Other aforesaid УinitiativesФ, resulting to the creating of the completely closed scientific communities and to the taking money from the scientists (for their papers publication) are the other examples of such УreformФ. The лofficial science╗ fate is predetermined. Now, it is decomposing (poisoning all around itself) cadaver.

It is clear, that the events, described here show only one side of the problem. We live at the age of computer technology and Internet. It is impossible to stop scientific progress. The world begins to understand the necessity of the changes. We call publishers revise their points in accordance with the demands of the modern times. The times when publishers can to dictate their will to scientists become a thing of the past. Nobody have the right to appropriate to himself (and hide) the search data, obtained by scientists generations. Publishers must understand this fact. Some publishers have begin open (for some time, yet) full texts of their journals for all readers in Internet. It is positive act. The time become to make next step in this direction. We all want to see the results of progressive changes during our life. We can precipitate this process.