Research councils' requirements could bankrupt academic journals
BMJ 2005; 330 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.330.7497.923-a (Published 21 April 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;330:923
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.
Editor - The journal publishers who responded to the Research
Councils UK proposal that requires all researchers who receive public
research funds to post their results on publicly accessible electronic
databases are approaching the subject in the wrong way [1]. What matters
is not how journals are funded, but how we can make the results of
research as widely accessible as possible - especially if that research
was funded by public money. The enormous benefits of unrestricted access
to research findings by researchers, clinicians and patients should be our
first priority.
To insist on the current subscription-based model is to stifle
innovation for the sake of the dogged preservation of the status quo. The
Internet is a new medium that offers new possibilities, and we, as medical
editors and publishers, are duty-bound to explore and take advantage of
these, both for medicine as a science and for the care of our patients.
And we have only just begun. Its ability to distribute information widely
and relatively cheaply has the potential to transform how we communicate
research findings. Publishers and editors of subscription-based journals,
as well as researchers and clinicians, should understand and embrace the
opportunities we now have.
The claim that these new developments must lead to economic disaster
for many journals is wrong. Rather than restricting access through
subscription charges, journals can be sustained by levying a charge on
authors - or, more accurately, their institutions and/or funders - to
cover the cost of peer review and, if the article is accepted,
publication. This enables articles to be accessed free of charge online,
generates revenue to sustain the journal, and, by keeping the peer review
process independent of the payment process, ensures that quality filters
are preserved.
The Research Councils UK is to be applauded for taking the lead in
this important development.
1. Mayor S. Research councils' requirements could bankrupt academic
journals. BMJ 2005;330:923
Competing interests:
BioMed Central is an Open Access publisher that is funded by levying a charge on each article accepted for publication.
Competing interests: No competing interests
It is unfortunate that a journal of the quality of BMJ should publish
a scare story about bankruptcy for academic journals. If this article had
come from a piece of academic research the BMJ editors would have rejected
it as biased and lacking in evidence. The priority for the Research
Councils is to decide on a publication policy that is good for research.
They will have taken into account the interests of all stakeholders in
academic research, not only publishers but also the taxpayers funding much
of the research and those who need ready access to research results.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests
In Mayer's article publishers justify the existence of costly
journals by arguing that "the existing journal system provided a valuable
quality assurance role through its peer review process. ....Journals also
added value to research papers by commissioning editorials and
commentaries"
But in most academic journals (maybe not the BMJ?!) the value is
added by the very hard, mainly unpaid work of editors and armies of
reviewers and commentators, funded by the taxpayer through universities.
We even do the copy editing. I can't see what the arguments are against
moving to a free access web-based system, with peer review remaining the
gold standard.
Competing interests:
Researcher and reviewer whose (public) funders have to pay for me to access the articles that they also pay for me to produce.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Focussing on the subscription-based model is wrong
Dr Tamber's view "What matters is not how journals are funded,.." is
rather worrying.I wonder whether he is suggesting that journals should
turn a blind eye to the credentials of funders,simply to promote greater
access to research publications.I hope not.Similarly, I hope no
responsible journal publisher,including the one that Dr Tamber is involved
with,accepts funding without proper scrutiny of the funder
concerned.Indiscriminate acceptance of funding whether for commercial gain
or otherwise,is a risk that is not worth taking.Therefore, it does indeed
matter,how journals are funded.
Further,the subscription-based model may have its own weaknesses, but
author/institution-funded model does not necessarily mean it offers a
better quality product in the end.Paying for publication could vitiate the
quality of decision making, and it is an argument that is hard to
eliminate.In a world full of conflict of interests,it would be perhaps
unethical to suggest that paid-publication model should be in the
forefront of web-based research publications.
Competing interests:
None declared
Competing interests: No competing interests