Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Frightening proposal
- Ian Guy (24 January 2003)
-
Free journal? Time to wake up
- Debasish Debnath (25 January 2003)
-
Cautious welcome
- Ahmad Risk (25 January 2003)
-
Re: Cautious welcome
- Patricia F. Anderson (26 January 2003)
-
'Author Pays' must have 'Open Peer Review'
- Trevor G Marshall, Frances E Marshall (28 January 2003)
-
Open Access: At What Cost?
- vinod Scaria, Center for Cybermedicine and Internet Research, calicut (30 January 2003)
-
Economic models of scientific publishing
- Martin Richardson (4 February 2003)
-
A unique opportunity
- David C Prosser (11 February 2003)
-
Different models are needed
- Sean P Lynch (10 April 2003)
-
"Author pays" may be the new publishing model
- Michael O'Donnell (11 April 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Ian Guy, Lecturer Waiariki Institute of Technology
Send response to journal:
|
Whilst paying for publication may reduce the running costs and subscription costs for those respectively producing and subscribing to journals, there is the inherant risk that those with the most money (e.g. Pharmaceutical companies) may be able to 'buy' the right to publication and hence promote products in an unfair manner. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Debasish Debnath, Clinical Research Fellow Department of Surgery, University of Aberdeen, Polwarth Buildings, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, AB25 2ZD
Send response to journal:
|
The concept of free online journal seems too good to be true.[1,2] There are certain hidden agendas that need attention- 1. Journals are essentially asking the authors to ask their sponsors to pay for the cost of the publication. Industries would grab such opportunities in order to publish their works. There is a possibility that journals would be flooded with such publications sponsored by the industries. Needless to say that such publications would convey the conclusions favourable to the industry and positive results would be published more often than the negative ones.[3] Researchers’ growing dependence on the industry, accompanied by a decline in support from the government, makes it a distinct probability.[3] 2. Those researchers who do not have major sponsors would miss out on publications in journals of their choice. 3. The fact that the industry would pay for the cost of publication means two tier journals would be produced. The so called ‘free’ journal might in effect be the proxy spokesperson of the industry. The latter is exemplified the existing notion that ‘free journals that are simply vehicles for advertisements’.[4] 4. The ‘paid’ journals would struggle to cater in the conventional way. Worse, if the authors have to reach their pockets in order to pay (in the absence of sponsorship) £936 ($1500, €1460) per article, it would be interesting to see how many publications would eventually take place. If such an eventuality only the ‘quality journals’ would be able to survive. Paradoxically, given the current non-competitive nature of the journals, some may view this as a blessing in disguise![5] References: 1. Delamothe T. “Authors pays” may be the new science publishing model. BMJ 2003;326: 182. 2. Eaton L. "Free" medical publishing venture gets under way. BMJ 2003;326: 11. 3. Hopkins J. Industry is deeply involved in funding US research. BMJ 2003; 326: 179. 4. Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet 1998;352 (suppl 2): 18-22. 5. Smith R. The market for medical journals is "anticompetitive," says expert. BMJ 2003;326: 182. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Ahmad Risk, Editor Health Informatics Europe Brighton UK BN3 2JD
Send response to journal:
|
I welcome this development with the understanding and appreciation of the difficulties many journals face in providing free access, and the authors' desire to publish and retain copyright of their work. However, this welcome is qualified thus: 1. Delamothe talks of "The hope is that agencies funding the original research will agree to foot the authors’ bill". What happens with authors who do not have such luxury? 2. What effect this will have on research from developing countries reaching the wider audience it craves and deserves? Such research, of course, is already disadvantaged on many fronts. Ahmad Risk Competing interests: Member of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Medical Internet Research - an author-pays journal and the official journal of the Internet Healthcare Coalition, which the author is Chair. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Patricia F. Anderson, Head, Dentistry Library University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 48109-1078
Send response to journal:
|
As a medical librarian, I must agree with the "Cautious welcome" extended by Dr. Ahmad Risk. The new publishing models, issues, and justifications discussed in both the Delamothe(1) and Smith(2) articles are perhaps far more valid than many practitioners might realize. What is frightening is less this paradigm shift than the current publishing model. In my own library, I have had to cancel a journal which cost roughly $11,000 USD for one year with four issues. The idea that a single title could charge this much is frankly astonishing to me. On the other hand, there are titles which I wanted to purchase in a different (and superior, more usable) format, but was not able to do this because of the block purchasing models described in by Dr. Smith and the long-term contractual commitments which attend those. Historically, the 'author pays' model and 'shareware' models are both more like the original publishing models at the time the initial copyright laws were enacted. Over the past century, we have seen a shift in copyright legislation toward empowering the middleman and protecting the intellectual property rights of the creative person as sold to the middleman. Both the 'author pays' model and the 'shareware' model represent a return to the concept of nurturing the creative activity of those persons so inclined and promoting access for all interested. Thus, these models promote intellectual growth and endeavor, and ultimately enrich society in many unpredictable and immeasureable ways. Foremost among these is learning and education. (3) The concerns expressed by Dr. Risk, who pays if the author can't, and access to developing countries and other persons who are disadvantaged relative to technology and information access, are very valid. The latter concern is perhaps more of a concern now, with the current publishing model, but will remain deserving of special attention. Regarding who pays if the author can't, this concern will have to be addressed by the journal editors using the new model. Any paradigm shift is likely to have a few bumps along the path of implementation. The solutions currently proposed, funding by the agencies giving grant and research funding, exclude voices who do not receive or seek such funds, and new voices with new ideas not yet accepted. Hopefully, there will be private donors or visionaries who are able to find ways to include the best of the new irrespective of their personal finances. Overall, I believe that this new model offers a better hope for addressing these issues and concerns than the options currently available to us. Patricia F. Anderson References 1. "Author pays" may be the new science publishing model. Tony Delamothe. BMJ 2003; 326: 182b. 2. The market for medical journals is anticompetitive, says expert. Richard Smith. BMJ 2003; 326: 182. 3. For this latter concept, I am indebted to James Hilton, Associate Provost for Academic, Information and Instructional Technology Affairs of the University of Michigan. Competing interests: Senior Author, The Medical Library Association Guide to Health Information on the Web (forthcoming 2003). |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trevor G Marshall, Research Director SarcInfo, Thousand Oaks, California, Frances E Marshall
Send response to journal:
|
'Author Pays' publishing needs to formulate a viable model for 'Open Peer-Review'. We are independent researchers who have described a comprehensive etiology for Sarcoidosis. One of our conclusions is that TNF-alpha drugs can be supplanted by safer, less expensive, therapies. Far from being welcomed, our manuscripts have been repeatedly suppressed by hostile reviewers. The current print-publishing model makes it too easy for hostile reviewers to suppress dissemination of innovative research. The identities of reviewers are rarely revealed, and there is consequently little or no accountability. While the BMC model of 'Author Pays' does indeed publish the peer-reviews along with the manuscript, unless the paper itself is published the reviews disappear into some bottomless pit (along with the manuscript). This process can be abused by an influential peer-reviewer, simply by preparing a sufficiently scathing commentary. The manuscript will be rejected, the identity of the reviewer is never publicly revealed, nor is the review itself ever opened up to public scrutiny. Reference 1 is a manuscript that recently suffered such a fate. We find it telling that when we placed our rejected manuscripts [1,2,3] on the BMJ Clinmed NetPrints Server, not one of these reviewers has publicly offered any criticism. This community relies upon PubMed indexing for the dissemination of new information. In turn, Pubmed relies on the integrity of the editorial process. One of our 'manuscript failures', posted onto Clinmed, has achieved the top ranking on Google for "sarcoidosis remission". There have been thousands of page views. Yet two peer reviewers rated it "of limited interest", "adding little to existing knowledge". Clearly this is a disconnect which needs to be addressed. We have had limited first-hand experience with BMJ's own 'open' peer-review initiative [4], but we note that it does not encourage a direct exchange of ideas between reviewers and the authors. The effectiveness of free and open dialog is obvious to any participant in BMJ's 'Rapid Responses', and there is no reason to assume that a similar system might not expeditiously effect 'Open Peer-Review'. We are convinced that a system of 'Open Peer-Review' must be developed as part of any initiative to increase public access. There is no way that Medicine is going to become more effective, or more available, until a peer-review system emerges which can effectively disseminate data and interpretations that collide with conventional wisdom. References 2. Marshall TG, Marshall FE: Remission in Sarcoidosis. clinmed 2002 Aug 22;2002080004. clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2002080004 (accessed 27 Jan 2003) [Full Text] 3. Marshall TG, Marshall FE: Valsartan Dosing Regime Modulates Psychotic Events in Two Sarcoidosis Patients. clinmed 2002 Aug 29;2002080006. clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2002080006 (accessed 27 Jan 2003) [Full Text] 4. Smith R: Opening up BMJ peer review. BMJ 1999 Jan 02;318(7175):4-5 [Full Text] 
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
vinod Scaria, director VirtualMed, Center for Cybermedicine and Internet Research, calicut
Send response to journal:
|
Open Access- the buzzword seems to be attractive and interesting indeed. Getting things for free is something irresistible, but as in all those killer advertisements that run on our televisions, the notice in fine print takes the charm away. In an attempt to create freely accessible medical literature, I am afraid, something is going wrong somewhere. First of all, charging a researcher an exorbitant fee for publishing his works does not seem to be so attractive. [At least for the developing world] The people behind the open Access Initiatives need to keep in mind $1500 is still mind boggling to a researcher from the developing world [and that is almost equal to the yearly pay of an average researcher in many developing countries]. Most often the research is funded from one’s own pocket, out of motivation and dedication to the science [possibly unheard in the western world]. This would mean what meager research these talented researchers bring out would have to meet closed doors when it comes to publication. Almost 25% of all researchers live in the developing countries, but they publish less than 3% of the total scientific articles published [1]. A non peer reviewed article [2] on the acceptance rates of papers submitted to BMJ pointed out that The acceptance rate for the period 1989-1998 was 7.9 for developing and 16.7% for developed countries (x2=137.4, p<. 001). In other words, articles from developed countries were 2.1 (95% CI 1.8-2.4) times as likely to have their articles accepted. The economic bias that would emerge in the new publishing scenario would only worsen this situation. Secondly researchers from the developing countries have not been taken into confidence. The Budapest open access Initiative signatory list speaks for it[ http://www.soros.org/openaccess/read.shtml &http://www.soros.org/openaccess/view.cfm ]. I am afraid that the researchers/organizations of the developing world are severely kept away [possibly not informed] from the initiative. I am also afraid that the high cost of publication [with the already rising costs and sophistication of research] would in turn promote ‘safari research’ in a big way, thus depriving the researchers of the third world their last drop of self- esteem. I am afraid that the proposed fee waiver for researchers who cannot afford would turn out to be a marketing trick [eventually destabilizing the present model and leaving it into the hands of a few newly emerging monopolies]. The grants and funds that support the new publication model would not be eternal. This would mean someday when the grants are over, the amount of the fee waived and the number of papers for which the fee is waived will solely depend upon the economic motives [as profit] rather than scholarship The new policy would threaten the existence of smaller journals. I would
add that the new initiative would be the most harmful to journals
published from the developing countries. The journals published in
developing countries rely on the small profit [most of them cost about $4
per issue compared to the cost of single articles as high as $16per
article which I tried to access yesterday
I don’t think the present publishing model is too bad to be
discarded. What is essentially needed is the optimization of cost of
publishing and creation of a differential pricing system/access [which
institutes in developed countries would possibly object at any cost]. I am
really amazed by the hue and cry raised by the people in developed
countries on the prices of journals. It seems that they are rather unhappy
that they are not buying more , which would rather be perceived as
sadistic to many in the developing world. I personally know of many
medical libraries in developing countries in Africa and Asia who have not
bought a SINGLE foreign Medical journal last year due to lack of funds.
The propounders of the so-called Open access would jump up to say “that is
exactly what we are trying to change”. And I would rather say there is
still hope in the existing system to create a change, without leaving
anything in fine print.
a) Differential access is not something new or hard to implement on
the Internet. Researchers from developing countries could access the
literature free/ at a reasonable cost So we can formulate possible alternative strategies to provide open access
literature:
a) Research institutions publish their research on their websites in
open access format. REFERENCES
1) LaPorte RE. Internet server with targeted access would cure information
deficiency in developing countries. BMJ;314:980 2) Scientific Colonialism
and Safari Research Benjamin Acosta-Cazares Edmund Browne Ronald E. LaPorte
Dieter Neuvians ,Kenneth Rochel de Camargo Roberto Tapia Yang Ze
clinmed/2000010008v1 (January 13, 2000) 3) *The Author is working on
formulating such a framework. Peer Review on the authors open Journal
utilizes Discussion Lists and is in the process of utilizing the Wiki
technology Competing interests:
Competing interests: The author owns VirtualMed and MedLib, and publishes an open peer reviewed-open access journal ‘Health library Online’ on the Medlib Website. He is also working towards creation of a framework for direct publication and open peer review of scholastic communication. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Martin Richardson, Journals Director, Oxford University Press Gt Clarendon St, Oxford OX2 6DP,UK
Send response to journal:
|
I was interested to read that according to Tony Delamothe ‘a consensus is emerging on how the Internet will change the economics of scientific publishing’. As far as I am aware no journal relying solely on charging authors for online publication has yet managed to derive sufficient revenue from this model to meet its running costs. Our own approach at OUP is to maximise dissemination of our online journals by adapting the traditional subscription model in order to extend online access to groups of institutions, companies, whole states or countries. We also offer free online access to the poorest developing countries, and participate in archives such as those provided by PubMedCentral and HighWire Press. In addition, we are experimenting with other pricing models, including charging authors for publication and providing ‘free’ online versions subsidised from print revenues or by advertising. My own personal view is that although the virtual world is changing the economics of scientific publishing, in the real world no single model is likely to meet the needs of every author or reader. Open access journals funded by author charges may eventually prove to be the economic model of choice in some cases but most journals, unless they also benefit from grants or subsidies, will need to rely on a mix of economic models in order to continue to support the costs of online publication. Competing interests: Martin Richardson is Journals Director at OUP, a department of the University of Oxford. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David C Prosser, Director, SPARC Europe SPARC Europe, 99 Banbury Road, Oxford, OX2 6JX, UK
Send response to journal:
|
I found the response to Tony Delamothe’s original article on new models in scholarly communication interesting. Two readers have suggested that an author payment model would result in a flood of biased papers from researchers based in companies (especially pharmaceutical companies). If this does not happen now when publication is free to authors I do not see why it should happen when authors are charged. Provided journals continue to impose stringent peer review, biased papers will not be published. Some journals may well accept below-standard papers in the hope of receiving more money (in the same way that some do already!), but readers will quickly identify those journals that are essentially thinly disguised adverts. Journals such as the BMJ will want to jealously maintain their reputation for high quality and will not compromise peer review. The point has been made that author payment would not work for authors in the developing counties. This is true, but it would be a great improvement on the current system! At the moment not only are researchers denied access to the literature, but they are underrepresented in terms of published papers – as Vinod Scaria points out. Open access would give all researchers access to all the literature, levelling the playing field considerably. For authors from the developing world, publishers would have to waive the fee (as BioMedCentral does [1]). Of course, this can be seen as ‘charity’ with no guarantee that it will continue, but there would be no guarantee that all publishers would continue with differential access or differential pricing as Vinod suggests. Author payment is only one way to fund open access journals and, like Martin Richardson, I am sure that journals will be supported by a mix of income sources (as they are at the moment). This point has been well made in the guides to converting existing journals to open access and launching new open access journals that have been put together on behalf of the Budapest Open Access Initiative [2]. All change is disruptive. However, the opportunities offered by open access are so great and the problems with the current model so significant that we would be remiss not to take advantage of this chance for change. There is a growing momentum amongst authors, readers, librarians, publishers, and funding bodies in support for open access across the world. Much has been done already and I believe that in the next few years we will see a significant and ever increasing proportion of the primary literature being published in open access journals. [1] http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/apcfaq [2] http://www.soros.org/openaccess/oajguides/index.shtml Competing interests: David Prosser is Director of SPARC Europe, the alliance for change in scholarly communication (http://www.sparceurope.org) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Sean P Lynch, Honorary Senior Clinical Research Fellow in Psychiatry Mental Health Research Group, Peninsula Medical School, Department of Mental Health,Exeter EX2 5AF
Send response to journal:
|
I have been intrigued by the debate on freedom of access to publications and payment models for publications. This debate is crucially important to the scientific community. The "traditional" paper journal model is being rightly challenged due to the demands for rapid updating and access to information by the scientific community. "E-journals" have evolved into "e-resources" and potentially offer more flexibility and breadth of information, debate and opinion than their parent "paper" versions. Despite any harsh economic realtities, two major aspirations I beleive are central issues in this debate are "social" and "economic" inclusion of both readers and authors. As regards "economic" inclusion, I personally feel that it is a retrograde step if junior authors might be discouraged from publishing because of the concern of "payment per article", every bit as much as any restriction of access to educational resources to readers because of inability to pay. I feel that an important part of the function of a journal or other scientific resource is to encourage, aid and develop active contribution from potential authors and readers i.e. social inclusion. The other concern I have about the payment argument is that this seems unnecessarily inflexible with what is a highly flexible communication medium. There are few technological reasons that on-line payment options by readers cannot be highly differentiated to serve the ideals of inclusion e.g. by subscriber type or intended subscriber use, by material volume (the contrast of multiple paper searches versus information on key elements of a specific paper.) The ethical difficulties of author payment have been debated such as "conflict of interest" situations for both author and journal, depending on the financial implications incentives and influence of the sponsor (even in non-commercially sponsored research). Perhaps it is worth focussing on other aspects of payment. If this were to be seen partly as author "bond" this might be a progressive step i.e.whereby part of any fee is seen as related to guarantorship of the paper and might allow open access to source data for verification. This would be a justified additional cost for publishers, which would aid the scientific community. There is an argument that this might need to be differentiated for research sponsored by larger versus smaller funders, or for largely unfunded research (yes this still exists thankfully) and it is important that clear editorial/journal policy exists for waiving or reducing charges in cases of high scientific merit, from relatively junior (or unfunded) contributors. Competing interests: Editor of Primary Care Psychiatry The views expressed in this communication are my own and do not necessarily reflect the position of Primary Care Psychiatry |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael O'Donnell, Retired GP, inveterate doctor watcher and, these days, more often a patient than a doctor Loxhill GU8 4BD
Send response to journal:
|
If authors are going to have to pay to get their work published, isn’t it time that doctors had to pay to examine and treat us patients? After all it’s our data they’re using to build their academic reputations. Competing interests: I earn my living by seducing people into paying to read - or to listen to – the words that I write. |
|||