Importance of free access to research articles on decision to submit to the BMJ: survey of authors

id

Response

9

It limits the use of the BMJ for teaching purposes

11

Slightly lower

15

Less likely to use it as a resource

16

I was very proud to be associated with the BMJ (both via membership of the BMA and as an author) since I think it has performed a trail-blazing role in opening research and medical news to all. I am sad that this backwards step has been taken at a time when we should be making medicine ever more open to the wider world

19

I think it is a regressive step - the beauty of the former policy was its ease of use for everyone

21

Liked BMJ for letting the public see papers, just think a shame that does not anymore

26

I think that it was really good that the journal was freely available. I know lots of people who used to use it as a resource but can’t do this anymore. It is really important that papers and the views of experts - for example in your education and debate articles and editorials should be made widely available. Your editorials for example are very widely read

32

Some effect on the widespread availability of research and thus it’s potential impact

33

The BMJ is a highly influential journal with a broad readership base, including many who are not members of the BMA. To restrict parts of the journal seems counter-productive for an organisation which is committed to education and the dissemination of information

34

Access from remote sites was limited (abroad). At home and at work I have full text access through a university connection

38

Research published by a journal of BMJ quality should be open and available and current - not financially based

39

BMJ is major source for clinicians and researchers, particularly in the developing world. Subscription services pose an undue burden. Many other journals, of course, use such services but BMJ has traditionally stood apart on this and other important issues. It’s a shame that’s changing

41

Less connected to BMA subscription as funding strategy, more profit making

44

I used to use BMJ as a general purpose medical search engine. I should explain - I am a statistician - so I don’t have a good medical background. So when I wanted to something readable, I’d just use BMJ as a search engine - more authoritative than Google! But this isn’t such a good strategy now content is restricted

45

I was very disappointed at the decision

46

More difficult to access papers - I have to go through the library

47

More hassle but in good cause

48

I no longer make any effort to access the BMJ

49

I personally believe that free access is an important tool for investigators and, although I still consider BMJ a very important journal for communicating the results of the studies conducted by our group, I am sometime tempted to skip submitting an article or reading in detail (and therefore having a better understanding of the studies and related results) the published articles

51

Less likely to try to access articles or to refer friends to new articles

54

I consider it of great importance to have free access to the research papers also when I am ready articles published by others

60

You were such an example for others. Now this leadership is somewhat tarnished - although you are still much better than most

61

I have tried to go back and read articles in back issues and was unable to access them. This meant that when considering and issue, or writing about it, I was impeded by the need to have subscription

62

For the past two years BMJ has quickly been raising its profile among my colleagues - especially because of the open access. The research was more accessible and therefore more visible. BMJ was the only journal cited by "Journal Watch" with the reference "the full article can be viewed for free at..." I recently submitted several papers to BMJ primarily due to this service (as well as the bmj.com supplemental text options). The changes in Jan were disappointing and a great source of discussion in our institution

63

My view of access to the BMJ has changed

69

I do not read certain sections as regularly as I once did and probably miss important things BMJ is doing. BMJ’s pre-eminence may be at risk if it now becomes no more accessible than other leading journals

83

Previously, it was possible to teach students and fellow health professionals about research with articles from the BMJ with freely accessible links, thus promoting the name of the BMJ as a high value research journal

84

Free access to papers has been a major draw to publish in the BMJ since this means that more people will have easy access to the details of the study and those interested can have a better understanding of the research. If BMJ were to restrict its access, it would seem to be just like ‘any other’ major journal available - the key distinguishing factor of the BMJ, besides the quality of the research published, is the access to the research and thought pieces

86

BMJ has been leading the world of journals in some matters such as social responsibility - open access is one of the stakes in the moral high ground. But I understand the financial implications, as I’m sure everyone does. My suggestion is to provide all BMJ content free for a week, then put it under wraps: should increase the immediacy of attention, which you can show by weblogs. That should help with things you want to sell, such as job ads, etc.

90

Public access, particularly to patient populations, was a strong attribute of BMJ and I am sad to see if go

95

Clinicians who are not academics can’t look at my paper online

97

I thought that the BMJ was a world leader in medical journals by providing free full text access before and was sorry to see the journal backtrack on this courageous policy

100

It appears that dissemination of knowledge to the widest possible audience is no longer a major objective of BMJ. It could be viewed that financial factors are more important

101

I like to be able to email papers of interest to colleagues outside of medicine who maintain an interest in certain issues, and this is no longer easy to do. Also, when my paper was published, I was able to send the link to all the GPs who had recruited for the study so they could read it also. This access this a very powerful thing

102

Commercial priorities seem to be taking precedence over freedom of access.

105

Has given leadership in the area of open access to the CMAJ - would much rather have BMJ as my favourite journal to read and submit

106

I saw the free access part of the BMJ as a key part of its identity and role as a disseminator of information and evidence. It also contributes to its image of acting in the public good and for the betterment of public health. I was very disappointed with the decision to limit access, at a time when so many other organisations are moving towards freer access. It seemed a profit driven move for an organisation that I had assumed had a more balanced view of the world

107

I used to always this very positive when I saw a BMJ publication, because I knew it was accessible immediately, now I get the same stupid feeling and situation as with NEJM that it is complicated to get hold off and I consider the importance of the paper in relation to the trouble getting hold of it

113

Restrictions on access to information is always regrettable

115

I am disappointed that I cannot now get full text so easily

116

Commercial forces have clearly predominated over a professional view of dissemination of worthwhile knowledge. George Bernard Shaw said that professions are either a group of people gathered together in the name of progress or a conspiracy against society to rise prices -- looks like we are going the way of the latter....

117

I was very disappointed in it. I often refer students to articles and they are pleased to know it is free access for them

121

less access globally means less readership, less impact of papers and less recognition and awareness of publications

123

As my university library has not yet sorted their online subscription my use of the BMJ has become more inefficient as I need to physically go to the library to look at back issues

124

I feel it is less accessible particularly to low income countries, it is of prime importance in my research that the public health messages generated are disseminated as widely as possible (and indeed would make a considerable difference to our funders)

125

Less favourable for publication

126

Its not a easy to get information, going to library does take longer, at present still use rest, if less available would access and use BMJ less, and if I feel like that I suspect others would too, so anything published less likely to be read widely and taken into practice/educational activity

127

Free access to other journals is v important to me as an author, as i do not have the time or finances to get papers not available on internet, hence my preference for free journals in submitting papers

133

fewer audiences can read articles in BMJ

134

One great advantage of BMJ over other major journals was its free access. A strength of BMJ is editorials and review papers.

136

I admired the open access approach.

137

I always found it very good that there was free access to BMJ. I work at university and therefore we are likely to have access to the BMJ by subscription, but I think the BMJ is spread so widely around the world because it has open access. This widespread readership is important to spread the content of articles.

138

BMJ is swimming against the tide. Other journals are moving towards open access and you are going in the opposite direction. This is a real pity

140

Feeling that it is not so easily available to the public and reporters

142

Professional and research information should be freely available to all those likely to benefit from it, restrictions in any one area make it less likely that people looking for information in any area would go to the journal as a first choice

145

It is no longer widely available. Less likely to be referenced over an article that was available in full-text from another leading journal

149

Was a very useful free resource, not only to academics, but to members of the public also. Now not so useful

152

It is a small indication that BMJ is moving from priority to publish to priority to charge

156

I thought it was absolutely fantastic that you made everything available online. I particularly find that important in order to make it possible for medical doctors in low income countries to keep in touch with research and the ongoing debate. The fact that you have decided to close access to parts of the journal sadly makes you look a bit more like every other journal

160

I believe it was an important specific characteristic of the BMJ. It seems important to ensure full free access, particularly in developing countries or small institutions

161

Strictly speaking this really affects my likelihood of reading the BMJ and my view of the journal indirectly through this. The University Department for which I work subscribes to the BMJ but access is not easy. I rely heavily on my ability to access the BMJ over the internet

163

Open access is a positive feature, and removing it causes negative feelings. If it had never been open access, I probably wouldn’t have noticed

174

The BMJ was at the forefront of the call for increased, free access to scientific information, now suddenly you start with restrictions! Is it a case of double standards? It is not that I don’t appreciate the need, still I had hoped otherwise

179

When I realised that BMJ allowed the free access, I was very much impressed with BMJ’s progressive view and courage in the forefront leading to free distribution of knowledge. On the other hand, if this policy is not viable for business reasons, I can totally understand

180

A bit, for the reasons given below

187

The BMJ has excellent editorials etc which I find very helpful. Not having access to these is disappointing

188

I am sad about it, and it has lessened my interest in the journal. Because BMJ previously was freely available, I believe the journal was read by more physicians and achieved a higher status than before "the internet era"

190

BMJ has always been a high impact and very influential paper. Personally I favour it because it’s long reputation of radiation related papers

193

I wonder about the BMJ’s commitment to public education. Many staff and hospitals simply cannot afford the online subscription rates that journals charge

195

Seen BMJ as a leader of free access

197

I am of the view that intellectual work should be as freely available as possible.

200

Free access to research articles is important. Its a pain when you can’t access things online, and although possible to access with Inter-library loans I don’t think this is the way forward

201

I feel that it will significantly decrease the likelihood of the ‘casual’ reader coming across such restricted material; I would also be concerned about the equity of access for less privileged groups who may have other priorities with respect to funds

204

I was disappointed by this. Although I have a subscription through NHS Athens, it made accessing the journal a bit harder for me. The BMJ has made a tremendous contribution to open access publishing and charging seems to me to be a retrograde step

205

Viewed as more commercial and less purely scientific

206

BMJ has been an excellent resource of medical knowledge when completely free to access. In my view, at least one "flagship" medical journal, such as BMJ, should be freely accessible to everyone, regardless of resources, professional background etc

208

I used to see it as one way to get research as widely disseminated as possible; now that is restricted, especially to an international audience. I had a number of rapid responses to my article from around the world which raised some interesting issues. It is a shame to see this sort of debate limited to those attached to institutions and/or developed countries that are likely to be able to pay for access

213

I was in Germany this week; restricted access has clearly affected their view of what was otherwise a top journal and its impact on the world health care and research audiences; I think you should consider strongly going back to open access; it will be viewed well by the world and consumers in general if we as the BMA members pay a bit more to subsidise and contribute to the rest of the world

216

I had thought of BMJ as a leading model for open access, so was disappointed by the change

217

I access the bmj.com less often. I was disappointed such a courageous decision as the BMJ’s decision to allow free access to all was reversed. I thought the BMJ had done a great thing by opening its pages to all. And now they no longer are so

221

As a BMJ subscriber the effect is not directly to me but as someone working in research of international relevance I am concerned about world wide access to critical evidence and findings of current research

223

It has gone down in my estimation as I pay subscription to BMA and think easy access to articles very important

id

Response

11

Much lower

12

As a guarantor of giving the highest possibility for evidence based medicine to be brought out to a broad audience

14

I think it is a very good thing that research articles are available to all, and you should continue this policy. That is why we are doing research (to disseminate better knowledge)

16

After such large quantities of public and charitable money are put into research (including my own) it seems completely wrong that access should be rationed. Much of my work is with colleagues in low and middle income countries, and this would hit them particularly hard

18

I currently see BMJ as a principled leader in open access

19

I would assume that the BMJ was in financial melt down and would not be with us for much longer

20

I might be less likely to submit, as one of the attractions of having an article published in the BMJ is that the articles are freely available

22

may have less impact if not freely accessibly to a wide range of people

23

I would view BMJ as a more restricted journal than before, and not as interested to reach a wide audience as before

24

I would not use the service

26

I think that you will become part of the elitist network of journals and if a journal came along which made it content freely available and had currency, I would submit to them. This will happen sooner or later

31

I would see it as a more exclusive, less accessible journal. I am opposed in principle to all restrictions on access to research publications

32

Might make BMJ seem less influential, less accessible especially to those with less resources. Thus slightly more "ivory tower"

33

Our particular paper received interest from an incredibly wide range of people across the entire world. Many would not have had access to medical libraries, so the free availability of the text on the website was particularly important. Again, it is short sighted of the BMJ to restrict access to papers of broad interest

35

I would be saddened to see commercial interests prevent access to information that should be accessible to all

36

I value open access to journals myself and I will now consider the access to my own work important. It is especially important to those in developing countries. Nevertheless the impact of BMJ and reputation also very important

37

I would be worried that valuable work would not be reaching as wide an audience as is possible under full open access

41

Less modern and global and enlightened

44

Well I guess it comes down to impact factors in a way. I think more accessible journals will get cited more. Stands to reason really. I do this myself. If I need a reference for an article I’m writing and there’s a choice between one that I can download right now and one that I have to interloan (ie pay and wait for) - I don’t hesitate. I just download the free one and get on with it

48

I would not submit any further papers to the BMJ

51

Less likely to submit manuscripts

52

I am less likely to read a journal that doesn’t have free access - although an institutional subscription would probably be bought so might not affect me too much

55

I think that this would limit the access of underprivileged researchers to important research information

56

I appreciate it very much that BMJ is easy accessible. That may alter slightly

57

I believe in open access for original scientific research. BMJ has been a trailblazer. I wouldn’t want to see them head back to the dark ages. Why should my research, paid for by NHS, only be available to those who pay?

58

I think the BMJ would have less impact and utility for both the research and clinical community

59

I find it (for my own literature search) much easier with open access on the BMJ and instant compared to going off to the library to find the articles in the journals (that may have been misplaced)

60

Along the same lines...

61

It would seem unreasonable

62

See previous

63

Articles would be less accessible, and more difficult to distribute

64

This may contribute to trends of polarisation of access to scientific research information. While I would not necessary develop a negative view of BMJ as a consequence (for there are many other reasons for holding the journal in very high esteem), my view would be more positive still if these restrictions were not in place

65

I believe one of the BMJ’s clear advantages in getting its message across is its free access to all journal articles

66

Medical research should be easily available and the BMJ has always been excellent at making its research available

68

I would not see it as an open source for all

69

I think it would lessen BMJ’s historical commitment to disseminating important research evidence to everyone

71

It would have less appeal to doctors and students in developing countries, a negative effect

72

The free access to research on the BMJ across the world is an important aspect. Papers in the BMJ are responded to from various centres in many countries that require free access

73

Free online access (including to non-academic and non-medical audiences, who are unlikely to have personal or institutional subscriptions to the BMJ) was a major factor in my decision to submit. I think it important that these other groups of readers should have access to the work I publish

78

Right now I give BMJ lots of credit for having open access, which is an important benefit to readers in the developing world. Restricting this access would lower my opinion of BMJ

80

It is important that research is easily available. BMJ might lose some of its impact and its opportunity to get public attention to important medical issues

82

It would not affect me personally but would affect others, perhaps in the developing world who could not afford access

83

I would consider the BMJ as becoming a closed club

84

Same response as before

86

See prior comment - you would lose a feature that sets you apart from most other major journals. But it’s not a big deal

87

Definitely less attractive

88

I will submit the papers anyway, but especially in contact with journalists I think that it is a pity, that research papers will not be available. Researchers will usually be able to download papers through libraries anyway, but the public will loose access

95

Well, the BMJ would be less of a public resource. I don’t like to think of the BMJ as a business

96

I liked it very much that the articles could be accessed free. Everyone could read it easily if they wanted to

97

I would view the journal less favourably

98

BMJ is a highly regarded journal by physicians in countries who may not have the resources to pay for access. Cutting off access to up to date research findings would be a step backwards

100

As previous

101

Same comments as for the previous question

102

Strengthen view that the BMJ is not committed to the free exchange of ideas

103

I would be concerned that it would become a less prestigious journal and hence less keen to publish in it

105

Patients contribute to research, and researchers contribute to journals - journals should contribute back to patients for the whole enterprise to be fair

106

The BMJ has a reputation internationally for fairness and a genuine interest in promoting public health, rather than obscure scientific interests (in contrast with journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine). Moving the research articles away from open access would undermine this reputation, and from my point of view, would make the journal less attractive to publish in. I have chosen to submit to the BMJ previously because of this clear clinical and public health commitment

107

See prior comment

110

Along with the Lancet, the BMJ has always been the most important source of health care news in the UK since I can remember. When I was a kid I used to leaf through it in W H Smith. At the moment, when somebody hears it cited on the Today programme, they can check out the story for themselves on bmj.com, free of charge. If you took research articles off free-view, and allow access (essentially) only to Medics and Academics, then it’s hardly encouraging the public to increase their understanding of NHS or wider medical issues. Free access has set apart the BMJ, now you will be a business, first and foremost, and much less of a public service. Of course, you have always been a business and I’m sure it’s perceived as necessary in some way. But it’s a shame

111

Negatively, considering the inequalities in research funding and access to research across the world I thought it an important stance the BMJ took to ensure free access to research

117

It becomes too much hassle. I would look somewhere else for the information

118

It would appear that BMJ has started policy of discrimination. Researchers from developing countries may find it difficult to access it

120

Concern about availability and suspicion about motivation of BMJ

121

As before

122

I would be less likely to read/access BMJ online regularly

124

I would consider it a far less valuable journal for publication as the research would not reach as wide an audience

125

Potential readers have more hurdles to take before the BMJ papers of interest are available. Although it may be financially interesting for BMJ, possible negative impact on future BMJ scores on impact factors

126

Make it of less use as current research source, less likely to use as resource in teaching

127

Stingy!

128

The free dissemination of information with access for others allows the progress of medication. This is particularly true for landmark studies

130

Detract somewhat

131

I assume that the BMJ is widely read, both by researchers and clinicians. I would expect fewer clinicians to read research articles if access was restricted and that this would reduce the impact of articles published in the BMJ

132

I think it is the duty of BMJ to make it accessible

133

Fewer researchers in the field know what I have done and there is less chance to for researchers in the same area to communicate with each other

135

It would signal that the BMJ was failing to assist medicine in developing countries where funds for subscriptions may be scarce

136

Reduces world wide accessibility of published research

137

Because I would be worried that a lot of the information cannot be read as widely as now

138

As I said before, you are moving in the wrong direction

139

Would give the impression of a money making venture rather than a free information service for the good of the profession and patient care

140

Less available and accessible

142

Research articles should be freely available to those seeking more detailed information to progress their research or in the process of publishing their findings against the context of known literature

143

The free access epitomises the BMJ’s status as an altruistic, innovative institution aiming to serve health care needs worldwide. Clinical Evidence is another example. It is leading by example and is successfully challenging the medical publishing world to rethink how scientific knowledge can be made freely accessible to providers, service users and policy makers. If BMJ articles have access restrictions it will feel like a retrograde step

144

I wouldn’t be happy about this decision since in my view the paper should be free to all who are interested

145

More inclined to reference an article from a journal that did offer full text if both articles were of similar content

149

Yes..... free access to research seemed to be a principle be a noble principle to which BMJ adhered. My perception of BMJ if did this would be that it was not so principled

152

de facto

153

I’ve always considered the BMJ as a pioneer in the dissemination of medical science. Having free access to research articles is the key point of dissemination of medical science

154

Shifts the open access aspect that I value to be more like many other journals and possibly reduce readership

155

Journal is perceived as strongly supporting unrestricted access of knowledge, especially in poorer countries, and independent from drug/industry

156

Again, I thought it was outstanding that you went forward and made everything available online. I wouldn’t be so impressed anymore

157

I have always regarded the BMJ as committed to open access

160

Same reasons

161

I would view it as being a journal with limited access

162

I currently have access to the BMJ through our library system. But if I was no longer able to have access I would be less likely to read BMJ articles and may be less likely to think of BMJ when going to submit my own articles

164

Less democratic and more medico-centric

167

Scientists especially in developing countries need freely access to the researches to change their people’s life for better using other scientists’ experience. I therefore prefer to send my articles to a journal that is freely accessible for the other scientists

168

The more people that can read research the better. I think it is likely that free access to articles will increase the impact factor of the journal (which is better for authors and I presume better for the journal).

I like the idea that people from developing countries can have free access to the journal. Even in UK / Western countries having to go to a library to get an article makes it much less likely that someone will read an article (especially if there is an alternative which they can access for free online)

171

Information from research should be accessible to all irrespective of race, nationality, caste and creed. Why monopolise knowledge? BMJ - a leading journal should take the lead in freeing such information to all and for ever

174

I would regard the BMJ as just one of those journals out to get money any way they can

176

Reduce my opinion of it

179

The same reasons I expressed before

180

It seems to me that the free online availability guarantees to your journal the privilege of been read by a huge number not only of researchers but also clinicians around the world, who might have limited time for keeping up to date with the literature (and resources such as online institutional subscriptions are not as good as in the UK in other countries). It was a great sign of generosity and openness from your part, which is greatly appreciated by the scientific community worldwide. I hoped that more and more journals would follow your policy, and the idea of the BMJ going back to where most of the others stand would be sad

187

I would feel less inclined to access papers due to the added degree of difficulty in doing so

188

I would view the BMJ as a more ordinary journal and not as the most important journal in medicine

190

Slightly less likely that I submit to BMJ again

192

I believe that the results of research should be available to the widest possible audience. This could quickly be an example of the inverse care law, where those who most need to access the information are least able to do so

193

It is a barrier to education

194

Was always impressed by fact that BMJ as a major biomedical journal had taken the step to provide full access, and liked the journal for that as much as for its contents

195

Simply a significant policy change

196

Less favourable; I like the principle of open access

200

Less impressed with BMJ

201

Research articles may be particularly important elements of the BMJ’s content, hence the above comments apply especially to them

202

Results of scientific research should be accessible to all

203

The papers would be seen by less people and perhaps cited less, and make less impact

204

It would make me see the BMJ as primarily commercially driven. Most of the work published is paid for by public or charitable money and I would like to see it freely available. I know that publishers play an important role in bringing this knowledge into the public arena, but at the end of the day, you are only a conduit for knowledge, not the source or funder of it

205

More commercial and less scientific

206

BMJ has been excellent in providing current medical knowledge to the medical profession. In the era of freedom of information, research articles should remain free to access. I would regard restricting the access as a sign of commercialisation of the journal

208

See last email, I think dissemination of research findings to widest possible audience is crucial for all medical research, especially for a major general medical journal like the BMJ. Putting is behind access controls increases the "ivory tower" problem

212

As a slightly less accessible journal

213

As previous answer, we need to be publicly available to maximise impact and influence

214

It will be a step in the wrong direction. Research papers should be available for free

215

Would regard it as moving against the current desirable (and I believe irreversible) trend to make research info more readily available. It would suggest that the BMJ is going into reverse

216

I would be much less likely to submit articles to BMJ

217

It would mean the BMJ denies the research community and the public at large access to results relevant to both

218

(I speak English like a cow the Spanish) but it should give a view of a more close journal with more difficult information circulation

222

Free access to research articles is all important

id

Response

8

A good idea in principle, but it is the market that rules!

22

I find this tremendously useful

23

I think BMJ’s open access on the internet was a big step towards making the content available to a wider audience, and I had hoped that other medical journals would have followed the same path. I understand that this also might affect the number of subscribers to the journal negatively, which might be a reason why you now consider to go behind closed walls. It’s a pity, for sure

24

Try and keep it going

26

No. Make the researcher pay and make it freely available. Free for those from developing countries

28

I think this is a very difficult issue. The BMJ’s free access to primary research is a great strength of the journal. However, research now seems to be a commodity and I wonder if the current model of publication is sustainable in the long term

29

I think that it is great to have free access

31

A last bastion of scientific respectability in a world dominated by business concerns

32

I do see the balance between acceptable financing and easy access is not an easy one to achieve

33

Please retain free access. It sets the BMJ apart from many journals and is to its credit if it is allowed to continue

34

This will affect readers more than researchers that publish in the BMJ, which are likely to have institutional access to full text

35

I would very much like to see it continue!

38

BMJ has a reputation of leading on the publication of eclectic high quality research and having fast turn around and so being up to date. This seems undermined by the new approach, or maybe I don’t understand the new system. Is this all about running costs?

41

Open them to all

42

I have access through my university affiliation, so as a reader of BMJ access controls do not affect me directly. If I did not have access in this way, access controls would decrease the frequency with which I turn to BMJ

44

I know it’s tough financially to keep a free service going. Other journals offer free articles once they’ve reached a certain age. In a way I think I prefer that to your policy of free to start and then pay once archived. But I think that reflects my research background. I seldom have time to read what I am not immediately working on

45

I think it is very important to have free access for such an influential journal

48

Free access has contributed substantially to the BMJ’s outstanding reputation. Following the lead of lesser journals will reduce the BMJ’s profile and, concretely, its usefulness as an international reference

57

I see it as absolutely essential

60

Keep it free. I am not sure I understand the logic of restricted access for educational articles - are these less important?

70

It is nice if readers have free access to BMJ. However, it won’t affect my decision to send manuscripts for publication on this journal because of the good reputation of the journal

71

It presumably reduces the circulation of hard copy of the BMJ but for readers is very positive

75

The BMJ is so prestigious that researchers will try to publish in it regardless of its web-access policy. Free access also does not affect most researchers in developed countries because of institutional subscription and we can always get it through our library’s e-journals.

However, free access is still an excellent idea in terms of promoting the free dissemination of scientific data, especially in developing countries. Given the rapid pace of technology change, one wonders if closed access is not a last-ditch [and likely futile] effort by publishers to fight off new modes of publication and dissemination

76

Perhaps access should not be restricted in developing countries - this would be worth while

77

I think that it was remarkable that BMJ allowed free access to their research articles. I do not fault the BMJ for making the decision to place research articles behind access controls; however, I thought that making research articles available for free was extremely generous and I admired the BM for doing it

78

Free access was the main consideration in my submitting a paper with wide public health implications to BMJ

79

I think there should be free access to research articles for a limited time after the article has been published. Then the access could become subscription-based

82

No, except to say it is appreciated

84

Se previous comments

85

As long as the impact factor of the journal is not affected it would not affect my decision to submit articles for consideration to the BMJ

86

Free access can only work if you have riches to spare or a business model as per open access - I don’t think you can be "free" otherwise

87

Free access really stimulates an open discussion between researchers but also between the general public and researchers

89

The BMJ is a great journal – let’s try and keep it like that

91

I like the approach of biomedcentral.com, access to all, and payment from big institutions to cover this. I sometimes choose these journals above others because of their use for people

92

While free access is preferable, I can understand sharing some of the costs of maintaining bmj.com with subscribers/readers

93

I think having free access to BMJ articles was a powerful means of accessing the latest and the best in health research information - particularly for researchers in developing countries. The ease of free access for other researchers when travelling or away from institution libraries was also important. It would be a pity to restrict this access, but I suppose needs must . . . I must say that I’ve often found accessing restricted journal articles too much of a hassle and would do so only when really important

94

As I work in a university the library will be likely to have access to all content of the BMJ so it is hard to answer many of your questions

95

I think people really respect the fact that the BMJ has free access to research articles

99

I do not agree with free access to research articles on BMJ for developed countries. It’s not fair to such a high quality journal

100

Free access to research articles is one of the greatest features of BMJ- particularly for readers in less affluent countries

101

Free access is vital not only for members of the medical profession from developing countries, for whom I understand the BMJ has maintained free access, but also for students and also non-medicos with an interest

102

I would look for other ways to raise revenue rather than restricting access

104

Using our paper as an example: it was made possible by a grant funded by taxpayers, undertaken by staff at a university that is essentially funded by taxpayers and involved the active participation of 12 000 community based multi-ethnic volunteers. It seems only fair that the product of work supported (financially or otherwise) by the public of any country should be freely accessible

112

I think that the reputation of a journal as important scientific journal is most important when I submit a paper. As a reader I would like free access to all types of information in BJM

117

I was proud of the BMJ for making universal free access and leading the world in this. Now it has gone back to being just another journal

122

The free access is very important for dissemination of research results

124

It is in the interests of all that research is widely available- I find it difficult to believe that it makes commercial sense to restrict access as most of those getting free access could probably not afford to pay even if they wanted to. There is an ethical argument for the more wealthy subscribers to be subsidising those who cannot afford it- if it is really a problem of funds then raise the subscription fee slightly

125

1. Will provide more contact-time on the BMJ website

2. Will increase/maintain public and scientific interest in BMJ

3. Will increase availability for economically less privileged scientists

4. People are attracted to cite articles from free access sites

127

As a general principal, easier access to published material will encourage authors to write more thoroughly researched papers, particularly if like me they are registrars with limited time and access to a wide range of journals

128

There is a cost of doing business. If you must charge it should be on a minimal basis and make it up in volume

129

I think it is a shame that you have changed your policy. I have now subscribed as I work at home most of the time but for those who can’t afford it I think it will reduce your readership, particularly for those clinicians who are busy and don’t use the website very often. I have thought that it was fabulous that you allowed access to all and that made the journal different to others

132

It should become a world standard; sorry to hear that BMJ may give up the high ground of leadership; we have used you as an example of where the field should go

133

It is better to let all research articles be freely accessible to all readers as before. Otherwise many audiences, especially those in developing counties, are not able read articles in BMJ

137

I think it is very important to keep the free access to the research articles of the BMJ as this ensures widespread easy access

138

Please keep it free. Look at all Brazilian journals for example (I am Brazilian). They are all free access. If Brazilian medical associations can afford it, why can’t the BMA?

140

Great for the less economically countries. Research finding should be free

141

Free access enables young and not so well to do researchers to be able to get free ideas and also widen their thinking and research capabilities. This is very good and it should continue

142

It would be very helpful to the research community if all major journals followed the BMJ example of allowing free access to published research. Dissemination and the ability to compare findings with similar research and to interpret your findings in the context of prevailing opinions is important for researchers. Limiting this access will, in the end, prove detrimental to the influence the journal has on current medical thinking

147

Free access has stifled debate among e-responders, dominated now by single issue fanatics. Some degree of control of access would be desirable, within limits

148

I don’t have a problem with restriction, if it increases revenue to the BMJ. However, this does depend a bit on what is done with the extra revenue

150

I think clinicians don’t think that far when thinking about submission, but actually, to have electronic access worldwide is obviously immensely powerful and should be endorsed

152

I suggest that you continue to pursue excellence in internet facilities AND accessibility to the whole world, or the competition will. There are many avenues in electronic publishing, refereeing and peer commentary which are not explored. The title of the book describing how Coca-Cola was overtaken by Pepsi was "The other guy blinked"

153

Free access to research articles is the best way to guaranty equity in the delivery of medical knowledge, particularly to non-sponsored researcher and to third world countries

162

By making the articles freely available, the articles will be read by a larger audience. It’s important to have a research community that is well-read!

164

I think it is a fine example of freedom of information and makes it so much easier in my teaching of non-medical staff around evidence based medicine

167

No, thank you for asking me and sorry for the delay to respond

168

Please continue with it if you can!

169

Regardless of what final decisions emerge out of this process on matters related to free access, I would like strongly note one thing. BMJ led the way in this matter and any decision on this should be innovative and generous; characteristics that I strongly associate with BMJ

171

Note comments before

174

Just my prayer that they remain so

176

Obviously very desirable, if commercially feasible

177

As an older academic type, I am still largely dependent on hard copy. I personally do not try to access the BMJ on line. It is such a distinguished journal that the question of free access certainly would not influence my decision to submit an article. I hope these comments are helpful

179

I think that if free access is viable for business reasons, you should keep the free access policy. This would especially helpful to scientists in developing countries

185

It is a good principle if it is financially possible to maintain

188

In my opinion, the BMJ is one of the few uncorrupt journals in today’s medicine, and not totally in the hands of commercial (ie, pharmaceutical) companies. I therefore believe the journal has an extraordinary important position in medicine. The journal must be freely available to hold this position

190

Free access is vital for science in the new millennium. How to solve the financial aspects is another probem

191

It may be for financial reasons that the removing of the free access is considered, but for older paper, such as the ones published more than 5 years ago, it could be interesting to make them available directly on the web?

192

I am more likely to quote from a journal that has free access as it is easier for me to obtain the article in question

193

BMJ is at the forefront of EBM and improving practice. A lot of the work would come under research articles. These are the most useful articles in the BMJ

194

If possible at all, please keep it

195

Very convenient, but whatever you do is unlikely to change your status in the very top echelons of medical publishing, nor the wish of people like myself to get material published in the BMJ. If I knew questionnaires were going to be this convenient and short I would respond without prompting! If only submitting a paper were this simple!!!

200

I think free access to research articles is VERY important. And should be encouraged and facilitated

204

Restricting access would be bad for public health, particularly in countries where access to a subscription is harder. It also goes against efforts to share knowledge with patients

212

I think it is an advantage if a journal such as yourself is able to do this

217

Not only should the BMJ be made available to the research community, so should other journals. I would have expected the BMJ to surpass other journals after deciding to open its pages to all, I’m not sure what happened. I’m not sure either what happened after its pages were closed again

218

It is very difficult and time consuming to read more than three or four journals a week, especially when you are a GP with rather prosaic questions. The net hasn’t resolved the problem. An open source research articles is a unique opportunity to access to some hidden treasure

221

This is a critical time in medical publishing where some published research has become more accessible globally but others have become increasing difficult to access. The situation is continually changing which increases the difficulties for active researchers and active clinicians. It is important that the BMJ takes a leadership role in ensuring access to research as I fear other journals will follow the BMJ lead