Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
The researcher pays?
- Peter J Tomlin (12 January 2004)
-
Re: The researcher pays?
- Adam Jacobs (13 January 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Peter J Tomlin, retired SP5 3HJ
Send response to journal:
|
The researcher pays? The proposal that the researcher pays for publication of refereed articles on an open access internet network could seriously damage academic medicine. Behind the proposal is the arrogant assumption that the only research worthy of publication is that supported by some funding agency or drug house. But articles identifying adverse effects of drugs will not be supported. The thalidomide problems would never have been published if the researcher had to pay. Similarly was the discovery of helicobacter and its role in peptic ulceration a result of a drug house directed research? Like many researchers I was attracted to an academic career after having my first contributions published and the satisfaction of knowing one is contributing to the general body of medical knowledge. Those investigations were purely curiosity driven and the discovery of something that seemed interesting. As an National Health Service Senior House Officer, with a very young family I could never have contemplated doing any research if I had to pay exorbitant publication fees. Research without publication is self indulgent narcisism. I am now a retired medical academic and would point out that most of my published research was not funded by outside agencies. My experience must be similar to that of many medical academics. To suggest that the university departments must pay has the implication that only they are capable of doing worthwhile research. In any case their restricted budgets, particularly for the smaller university departments would prohibit publication particularly by junior members of those departments. Their careers would therefore languish and in the long term this would be to academic medicine’s disadvantage. Meanwhile finance directors of hospital trusts could not countenance such uncontrollable expenditure by their NHS employees. Clearly it is the public interest that medical research should reach the widest readership. I would suggest a levy on all medicines, prescribed and non prescribed, be used to fund free publication on the internet. The profits of the manufacturers of those medicines, as well as the patient benefits, have largely arisen out of the use of the direct or indirect knowledge accumulated and published by the researchers. The model for this proposal is the Betting Levy Tax which supports the improvement of racing stock and has the advantage of being outside Treasury, that is political, control. The Medical Research Council would seem to be an ideal body to administer and disburse such a levy and its independence would ensure that the money is used by and for the profession. Yours sincerely Peter Tomlin Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
I hope Peter Tomlin will be pleased to learn that the NHS is an institutional member of Biomed Central. This means that any researcher employed by the NHS can submit articles to Biomed Central, an open-access publisher, without having to pay the author fee. Competing interests: None declared |
|||