Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:1347 (6 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7427.1347-d
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITOROver the past decade the BMJ has shown its commitment to widening access by providing universally free online content and reduced subscriptions for people in resource limited settings. Given its support for open access, it is regrettable that, in the face of falling paper sales, the journal should opt to squeeze subscriptions for the few years it has left instead of fully adopting the more progressive open access model.1 2
Under the open access model, each article is paid for only once, subsequently becoming freely available to everyone (with internet access). This point is not being lost on funders. In the United States, the Public Access to Scientific Information Act seeks to place all scientific research substantially funded by government in the public domain.3 Currently, the US government spends $45bn annually on scientific research, the results of which are largely unavailable to taxpayers. The privatisation of scientific information by
Clarence C Tam, clinical scientist
clarence.tam@lshtm.ac.uk, Health Protection Agency Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London NW9 5EQ
Ben A Lopman, clinical scientist
Health Protection Agency Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre, London NW9 5EQ
Dina Handan, research student
Public and Environmental Health Research Unit, Department of Public Health Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London WC1E 7HT