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 had strongly supported the public-spirited revolt by researchers in their pledge to boycott the academic journal publisher Elsevier in Feb 2012, and wonder whether this protest has come to any conclusion.
Conscientious objectors aimed to meaningfully register their protest of long-exorbitant and profitably-priced access to Elsevier journals.
The price of advocacy for unrestricted access to findings from publicly funded research could be the prejudiced administrative handling and peer assessment of current and future manuscripts submitted to Elsevier journals by Cost of Knowledge signatories. In agreeing to not submit to, and review or edit manuscripts from, Elsevier’s stable of prestigious journals, conscientious objectors risk not gaining academic promotion and peer recognition from a positive association with high impact Elsevier journals.
The preferred target destinations Cost of Knowledge signatories are to divert their work remains undeclared. One would think the most ethical stance is for researchers to pay to publish in open access journals that remain free to readers. A prestigious journal housed under the corporate umbrella of Wolters Kluver, another business-minded global information services and publishing behemoth, seems unconscionable. More worrisome is the collateral damage that could result from the open-ended stand-off between Elsevier and medical researchers. Delays and uncertainties in the dissemination of seminal health care research findings whilst publishing models and houses are under threat could impede timely gains in patient care.
Research journals are expensive to produce and distribute even before the profit margin is added at the academic publishers’ discretion. The consumer-reader is obliged to pay for the journal product, or the author-researcher foots the bill for the prestige of being published in open access journals. The antagonism between the commercial priorities of academic publishers and affordability of journal content will continue until a publishing model that is more acceptable to all parties is devised and widely accepted.
Some researchers in the developed world can afford to prioritise journal prestige over publishing fees charged by open journals. This is unlikely to be feasible for both authors and readers elsewhere. It is time that we consider subsidising author and reader access from less developed health systems with poorer staff remuneration.
Academic publishing could well learn from the launch of the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) in Jan 2002. An initiative the World Heath Organization (WHO), HINARI was proposed by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General of the WHO and United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan at the UN Millennium Summit just 12 months earlier. At the beginning, Blackwell, Elsevier Science, Harcourt Worldwide STM Group, Springer Verlag (Bertelsmann), John Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer International Health & Science provided free or low cost full online access to some 1500 journals for the genuinely needy. There are currently 160 participating publishers offering more than 7500 information resources in 30 languages to health institutions in 105 eligible countries.
Subsidised and waived journal prices benefits clinical care and biomedical research in low-income settings. Such pricing models recognise biomedical research as being critical to improving the health of the developing world, and that access to primary biomedical information is essential to clinical practice and advancing medical research in low-income countries. That a plea by the UN and the WHO for more affordable online access to major journals in biomedical and related social sciences in developing countries was not only heard but acted upon is cause for optimism. HINARI demonstrates that corporate altruism can occasionally surmount the profit imperative, and could be the precedent for free or low cost access to non-biomedical journals for eligible needy individuals and institutions.
Competing interests:
Declarations: I was a clinical medicine textbook editor under the Elsevier imprint (2009) as well as a recent correspondent to the Lancet. This letter constitutes personal opinion.
Have not the Editorial Team noticed the irony of this editorial? Prominent on accessing this, one is greeted by a caption: "Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below."
Those in glass houses should be cautious with their stones!
Re: “Academic spring” sees widening boycott of Elsevier
I had strongly supported the public-spirited revolt by researchers in their pledge to boycott the academic journal publisher Elsevier in Feb 2012, and wonder whether this protest has come to any conclusion.
Conscientious objectors aimed to meaningfully register their protest of long-exorbitant and profitably-priced access to Elsevier journals.
The price of advocacy for unrestricted access to findings from publicly funded research could be the prejudiced administrative handling and peer assessment of current and future manuscripts submitted to Elsevier journals by Cost of Knowledge signatories. In agreeing to not submit to, and review or edit manuscripts from, Elsevier’s stable of prestigious journals, conscientious objectors risk not gaining academic promotion and peer recognition from a positive association with high impact Elsevier journals.
The preferred target destinations Cost of Knowledge signatories are to divert their work remains undeclared. One would think the most ethical stance is for researchers to pay to publish in open access journals that remain free to readers. A prestigious journal housed under the corporate umbrella of Wolters Kluver, another business-minded global information services and publishing behemoth, seems unconscionable. More worrisome is the collateral damage that could result from the open-ended stand-off between Elsevier and medical researchers. Delays and uncertainties in the dissemination of seminal health care research findings whilst publishing models and houses are under threat could impede timely gains in patient care.
Research journals are expensive to produce and distribute even before the profit margin is added at the academic publishers’ discretion. The consumer-reader is obliged to pay for the journal product, or the author-researcher foots the bill for the prestige of being published in open access journals. The antagonism between the commercial priorities of academic publishers and affordability of journal content will continue until a publishing model that is more acceptable to all parties is devised and widely accepted.
Some researchers in the developed world can afford to prioritise journal prestige over publishing fees charged by open journals. This is unlikely to be feasible for both authors and readers elsewhere. It is time that we consider subsidising author and reader access from less developed health systems with poorer staff remuneration.
Academic publishing could well learn from the launch of the Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative (HINARI) in Jan 2002. An initiative the World Heath Organization (WHO), HINARI was proposed by Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, Director General of the WHO and United Nations' Secretary General Kofi Annan at the UN Millennium Summit just 12 months earlier. At the beginning, Blackwell, Elsevier Science, Harcourt Worldwide STM Group, Springer Verlag (Bertelsmann), John Wiley, and Wolters Kluwer International Health & Science provided free or low cost full online access to some 1500 journals for the genuinely needy. There are currently 160 participating publishers offering more than 7500 information resources in 30 languages to health institutions in 105 eligible countries.
Subsidised and waived journal prices benefits clinical care and biomedical research in low-income settings. Such pricing models recognise biomedical research as being critical to improving the health of the developing world, and that access to primary biomedical information is essential to clinical practice and advancing medical research in low-income countries. That a plea by the UN and the WHO for more affordable online access to major journals in biomedical and related social sciences in developing countries was not only heard but acted upon is cause for optimism. HINARI demonstrates that corporate altruism can occasionally surmount the profit imperative, and could be the precedent for free or low cost access to non-biomedical journals for eligible needy individuals and institutions.
Competing interests: Declarations: I was a clinical medicine textbook editor under the Elsevier imprint (2009) as well as a recent correspondent to the Lancet. This letter constitutes personal opinion.