Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
It’s a mixed bag
- Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan (8 October 2004)
-
"Hybrid for open access"
- VAIDYANATHAN GOWRI (8 October 2004)
-
Hybridisation in the Cyberspeed Era
- Adrian S. Blaj (8 October 2004)
-
Disgusted of Derbyshire
- Paul B Silcocks (10 October 2004)
-
Impact Factor
- Christian F Fouillioux S (13 October 2004)
-
What about the self sponsored researcher in the developing world
- Wayengera Misaki, Misaki Gloria (13 October 2004)
-
Free open access is the ideal
- Chris Idzikowski (27 October 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Vadakkuppattu D Ramanathan, Deputy Director Tuberculosis Research Centre, Chetpet, Chennai, 600007, India.
Send response to journal:
|
It is in the interest of the authors that pay for publication so that anyone can access that information freely. However, it is the bit about the libraries paying for the ‘value added service’ that is worrying. Accessing the BMJ every Friday morning has been a matter of religious regularity for me for the past 3 years. While the original articles are certainly interesting, I learn more from the value added services (especially, the editorials and Minerva) and if we have to pay for reading it, I lose one more channel of learning quickly and cheaply (after all, we have to pay for the internet access & therefore, there are costs involved). While you might say that India can be classified as a ‘poor’ country and so I might still have access to the full journal, my gut feeling is that we may reclassified at any time as a not so poor country and the facility might be withdrawn. My suggestion, therefore, is certainly let the authors pay for publishing their original research. But please do keep the extra services accessible to all without any charges! V.D.RAMANATHAN. Competing interests: As a medical researcher from a not so rich country, I do have a vested interest in accessing the BMJ free. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
VAIDYANATHAN GOWRI, assistant professor obgyn SQU, OMAN 123
Send response to journal:
|
Sir BMJ is read worldwide and it is prestigious to get an article published in this journal. Please do NOT expect the authors from DEVELOPING countries to pay for their publication and they may access the value added content through other professional bodies like (RCP, RCOG etc., if they give access) by way of their membership of a college or society etc.,. Does not appeal to make an author pay….. Thanks
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adrian S. Blaj, Psychiatrist Chase Farm Hospital, The Ridgeway, Enfield, EN2 8jl
Send response to journal:
|
Sir: This is a topic very dear to my heart! I have always believed that there is a special type of ‘wealth’ which has a very peculiar property: the more you give it away, the more it multiplies. Sharing information is perhaps the most obvious example. The story goes back a couple of years when I started to question the policy of my own College in respect of charging people for accessing important articles. Releasing them free of charge after one year seemed to be an eternity in the era of cyberspeed. I remember I then brought into discussion (Computers in Psychiatry Special Interest Group - CIPSIG) the case of a well known and appreciated worldwide brand name - Marks & Spencer’s. M & S board believed so strongly in its brand reputation to the extent of refusing to sell merchandise paid via other companys' credit cards. In other words one needed to either have a M & S credit card or use cash /debit cards. I vividly remember my disbelief when I tried to purchase something in the mid 1990’s and as a result I ceased to go there . It is very likely that many other people developed a similar reaction and looked elsewhere. By the time M & S realised the mistake, it was too late. The company started to have problems, the shares slumped, the profits dipped and they have recently reached a point of being the subject of a hostile takeover. In my defence - at that time - I even mentioned the wonderful idea of the British Medical Journal of being freely accessible not only worldwide but in its homeland. An official from my College replied that (I quote from memory) the subscribers feel that if the articles go live it is not fair to continue paying their subscription. I must confess the answer left me silent reflecting on a not very dissimilar outcry heard soon after the collapse of the Iron Curtain in some Eastern European countries; ‘We don’t sell our country’ meaning that foreign companies were not to be permitted to invest in the local economy! I guess people however experiment all the time - a sure thing of committing no mistake is to never experiment anything! The hybridisation may or may not work. If payment is required for publishing papers, it may restrict some ‘junk’ publications or conversely open the road to abuse and commercial opportunity. But one thing I believe should be retained: the free live access at the point of BMJ electronic customer. For an immense number of doctors in the less fortunate countries this access is a life line. Cut the life line, and the BMJ could morally commit a genocide far bigger than those on the roll in Hague. Correspondence address: adrian.blaj@beh-mht.nhs.uk Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Paul B Silcocks, Clinical Senior Lecturer University of Nottingham NG7 2UH
Send response to journal:
|
Hitherto I been proud of the BMJ's policy on open publishing, but I am disgusted at this proposed change - and I write as a BMA member who necessarily receives the paper copy (and full electronic access anyway). I can understand the wish for some highly specialist journals to charge authors for publication, but this puts an unfair burden on academics who have to publish for professional reasons and who may have to shoulder conference fees and the requirements of CPD within already tight departmental budgetary constraints. I find it hard to understand why the BMJ needs to consider this, given its prestige, advertising revenue and captive BMA based subscriptions. It is also repugnant that a penny-pinching charge for access to "value-added" material is being considered. However if in future we are in effect to pay by the page, will the editors then be satisfied with a reduced subscription so that I don't have to receive stuff I never read, or no subscription at all? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Christian F Fouillioux S, MD. Venezuela
Send response to journal:
|
Sir:
It is completely understandable the need for charges in this tight economic times that we live in. But did you consider:
I started reading your magazine when I was a student, and 3 years after graduating I have become an addict of every section. In my country, Venezuela, we have a difficult economic situation with this actual government, and BMJ has been my faithful companion no matter the situation. I'm not sure if we are considered a poor, or medium-poor country, but please give a second thought to your decision, or lose some fans from Venezuela. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Wayengera Misaki, Doctor+Chief Editor,MMJ Faculty of Medicine, Makerere University+Mulago National Refferal Hospial, Misaki Gloria
Send response to journal:
|
As i write this rapid response, a critical reader will "think" that i am itching to come in the limelight--for just the other day i was responding to an editorial by N Sewankambo titled: "Academic medicine & it's global responsiblities". But rationale--the philosophers & lawyers say--determines the morality of the motive. As editor of a humble Medical school Journal in a Sub-saharan Country hit by several health gaps necessitating appropriate Research plus the other 3 arms of Academic Medicine to solve, i wonder where all this concept of "Author pay+Hybrids" will lead us. The whole concept of free access is very welcome here--for, to tell you the truth, i make a collection of the BMJs at my apartment & my greatest enemy would be a person that tears one. This view, i guess many "knowledge hungry" persons hold in the developing world and open access would make us the richest collectors of internationally referenced journals like the BMJ. But let us look at the fate of a self sponsored researcher in the developing world (much of the work i have done as a Principle Investigator--not research assistant--has been self sponsored), how do you expect one to pay a fee to have his work which he has tirelessly invested in to publish (which fee i believe won't be that small for a person living in the developing world). This is another way to say NO! to the papers in the developing world--despite the good motive held in it by Committees of many Internationally peer reviewed Journals. But who exactly is it causing us the heck-or trouble if i may ask? No doubt it is some bureaucrat in the NIH, NHS or Whatever who wrongly thinks all research is externally funded..NO! Let's say we have an Ebola VHF outbreak here in Kampala & i, the scientist/doctor on the ground, aint got funds to pay for peer review--would it be rational not to use the BMJ online submission for a Quick report (while staking human health globally)? I see nothing in this but a struggle between the giant internationally referenced Journals & those advocating for free access. My advice to the advocates is: why not offer to fund the expenses of these journals so they supply free, rather than jeopardise the entire process. Let me assure you, as an editor here--i have to keep on my toes to ensure that funds are available to have the next issue ready. So when you ask me to supply at no cost without telling me where the next issue's funds are going to come from, i think you are crazy. Don't we know that free access devalues something or have we forgotten how the French revolution was started by the Pride of a Queen who thought all could afford cakes. It's no wonder that Abbasi is not sure which stand he should take--for he is wise enough to see the dark side of both ends despite the hope offered by free access. But let me not appear pessimistic or else another responds to rebuke me as one who fears trying new things. This does not however mean that i am shying away from my views--Let the advocates address their side of the story & the Journals will do so automatically without causing damage to my dear author-colleaques from the developing world through this author “AUTHOR PAY- HYBRID” heck. Perspectively, the advocates of free access should offer to pay the mother journal a fee (which fee no doubt the author will want to pertake of) to save us the Mess. Be careful not to misquote me--Academic Medicine in the developing world will flourish in the era of open acess to publications--but how about the other loopholes mentioned above. Do we turn a blind eye? Like Abbasi, i am also lost in the picture--Don't crucify us. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Chris Idzikowski, Freelance researcher (sleep) /writer Home, Dromore, Co Down, BT25 1QN
Send response to journal:
|
Vanity publishing In my experience, an author paying for anything smells of vanity publishing and should be avoided. Further, any journal that involves payment by the contributor tends to sink downwards in most reading piles - the inference is that if an author/researcher has to pay to have their material published whilst free journals are available then their material can't be that good? Independent research Centrally funded research, whether commercial or not is usually financially restricted which invariably leads to biases (either conceptual or blatantly market-driven). Truly independent work is rare so should be encouraged. Adding an one more hurdle might be enough to prevent the work being done. Open access to text and data On a slightly different tack, it is difficult to assess the validity of abstracts without examining the text but open access to data would provide a route. The 1-2 week open access before a 1 year financial quarantine coupled with temporally unlimited open access to data views would not only prevent the wait but would enable the reader to assess the value of the work and possibly promote further research? Competing interests: Self |
|||