One of the interesting aspects of the Nature kerfuffle has more to do with people’s perceptions than anything else. Nature seemed to be indicating that PLoS was a failure because it was not making money and was changing its business model from what it said it was going to do.

Thus Open access proponents hit the roof because as a non-profit, PLoS does not need to make money and besides, changing is a feature, not a bug.

In my view, both will be successful, just for slightly different markets (and of course, my perception is the one that counts;-) There is a market niche for a highly selective, reputation enhancing journal like Nature, as well as one that is not as selective but which does publish high impact articles, such as PLoS.

Nature has examined more innovative approaches to enhance their business model (blogs, Connectea, etc.) than any other traditional publisher, as PLoS has done for the newer publishers. They both are trying to find creative solutions to changing market conditions.

So it is a little painful to see the acrimony, since they both have very valuable niches to fill. Heck, Nature is at least still affordable for the individual in many cases and with its favorable copyright and open access after 6 months, it is by far one of the most liberal of the for-profit organizations.

The publisher whose business model may well be in real danger is Elsevier, who does not really have any of the niche benefits Nature or PLoS has.