“Author pays” may be the new science publishing model
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7382.182/b (Published 25 January 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:182
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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)
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.="_001." in="in" other="other" words="words" articles="articles" from="from" developed="developed" countries="countries" were="were" _2.1="_2.1" _95="_95" ci="ci" _1.8-2.4="_1.8-2.4" times="times" as="as" likely="likely" to="to" have="have" their="their" accepted.="accepted." p="p"/>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
, another
clear evidence that we are thinking in the opposite direction. The
Initiative and the economic framework that would emerge would eventually
strip these journals of what little profit (?) they generate. The present
line of thought should be directed on as to publish journals cost
effectively. I also share the disbelief that even with a $9million grant,
they [the PLoS] are charging $ 1500 per article.
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
b) Differential pricing: Publishers
could agree to provide journals to developing countries at a subsidized
cost, recovering the damage by differentially pricing journals in
developed countries [which institutes in developed countries would
possibly object at any cost]
c) Provide free electronic archives through
PubMedCentral or any other open archive.
d) Provide free electronic access
to all [like the BMJ] What I would like to emphasize here is that there
are no ethical guidelines that guide journal publication. The only motive
that guides one to publish a journal is PROFIT. There has been no attempt
to mobilize one’s own resources to free scholastic communication. I had
always wondered why anybody would start a Journal at BioMedCentral
http://www.biomedcentral.com. Though the basic services like peer review
and editing are done free of cost, and a fee is charged for each article
published, the Journal eternally belongs to BioMedCentral
http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/authors/startajournal .Even at the
lowest cost of as institutional membership at BioMedCentral which costs $
1550 per annum, http://www.biomedcentral.com/info/about/instmembership one
could get the web space, domain and designed pages at a fraction of that
cost. For institutions, which own websites, the publication cost can be
still be lowered.
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.
b) Creation of a framework for such publications to
ensure uniformity &interoperability [RDF or XML based meta data could
be possibly used]
c) Creation of a framework for Online Open peer review
with utilization of multiple modalities like Mailing Lists, Wikis etc]*,
which would in turn lead to direct publication by the author which would
be peer reviewed and published by the author himself, and at the same time
ensuring interoperability.
d) Promotions of alternative methods like Net
Prints and Research archives and creation of frameworks for peer review
and publication. I am not totally against the Open Access Initiatives, but
afraid at the fact that the Open access initiatives are treading the wrong
way. Alternative methods that would take into confidence everybody
involved is the need of the day. I am also of the opinion that the
Initiatives should go further and promote research and formulate
guidelines/frameworks rather than directly intervene in a competitive
field and potentially destabilize the system. Technology should open up
opportunities in fulfilling this dream. And I am optimistic that new
thoughts would emerge to guide us through the dark.
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
'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
1. Marshall TG, Marshall FE: New Treatments Emerge as Sarcoidosis Yields Up
its Secrets. clinmed 2003 Jan 27;2003010001. clinmed.netprints.org/cgi/content/full/2003010001
(accessed 27 Jan 2003) [Full Text]
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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).
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
"Author pays" may be the new publishing model
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests