Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Vanity and profit
- Simon Chapman (2 May 2003)
-
Not all authors will gain
- Alan W. Bates (2 May 2003)
-
Publishing for the rich
- Joyce Morris (3 May 2003)
-
Impossible to get started
- Frank J Leavitt (5 May 2003)
-
A lower access price?
- Frank J.J. Conijn (5 May 2003)
-
Author pay model - widening or narrowing the digital divide?
- Yodi Mahendradhata (5 May 2003)
-
Answering some objections
- Peter Suber (5 May 2003)
-
Beware of widening the chasm between the diseases of poverty and affluence
- C. Raina MacIntyre (6 May 2003)
-
only "bad" authors should pay
- Joseph C. Watine (6 May 2003)
-
free lunch
- douglas salmon (6 May 2003)
-
NHS authors can already enjoy free open access publication
- David C prosser (7 May 2003)
-
There already is a better way - 'Collaborative Publishing'
- Trevor G Marshall (7 May 2003)
-
Let's put things in perspective
- Adam Jacobs (9 May 2003)
-
Let's not lose perspective
- Trevor G Marshall (10 May 2003)
-
Budapest Open Access Initiative
- James E. Till, Canada M5G 2M9 (10 May 2003)
-
Re: Let's not lose perspective
- Adam Jacobs (12 May 2003)
-
How to get from A to B?
- Leo J.M. Waaijers (15 May 2003)
-
Building the Road from A to B?
- Belinda J Fenter (19 May 2003)
-
In the interest of full disclosure
- Meg White (29 May 2003)
-
Author pays, but what for?
- Fernando Fernandez-Llimos (10 July 2003)
-
Undeclared competing interest
- Fiona Godlee (25 July 2003)
|
|
|||
|
Simon Chapman, Editor, Tobacco Control University of Sydney 2006
Send response to journal:
|
Delamothe et al assert that in the author-pays world of medical publishing "peer review would occur exactly as it does now - the author pays model would not become a form of vanity publishing". They also say that submission fees are likely to become routine parts of the process. But consider this. All editors receive and reject many papers that are competent and methodologically acceptable, but highly unlikely to be of any interest to many other than those who've worked on the paper. Experience teaches editors which sort of papers are uncitable. For example, our journal, Tobacco Control, could easily sink under the weight of parochial smoking prevalence studies. We receive an unending stream of these, and reject the great majority not because they are poorly done, but because we know that they are relatively unimportant, dull and a poor use of expensive publishing space. But if the cost factor is removed via an author-pays system, should we now accept such papers? The many authors of such papers would certainly agree, but would our readers see this as progress? While editors who cherish the "feel" and overall quality of their journals are likely to argue that author-pays should not compromise quality, how long would it take for their profit conscious publishers to begin urging them to relax a little? As an editor, I can often tell from a title and abstract whether a paper will be rejected before review. An author's submission fee will certainly encourage expectations in authors that their work should be reviewed rather than immediately rejected. Will such expectations be passed on to already overloaded reliable peer reviewers? Or will submission fees be a cynical little impost on authors naive to the concerns of editors to produce journals with papers that people want to read? Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Alan W. Bates, Consultant Histopathologist & Cytopathologist Department of Morbid Anatomy, The Royal London Hospital, London E1 1BB
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, The BMJ continues to advocate the 'author pays' model, despite its potential to narrow the field of would-be authors. Given that most UK doctors are employed by the NHS, how likely is it that our employer will pay the costs of publication? Those who do not receive any funding from elsewhere will therefore have to bear the cost themselves. Although attitudes to the 'author pays' system may be changing (I was told when a PhD student never to submit work to journals that levied a page charge) the proposals do not make financial sense. For the projected 500-1800 US dollars I could pay for the publication of a medium-sized book, or for next to nothing I could post material on my own web site; either way my work would be freely available. The proposed system will benefit researchers at large, well-funded institutions that will pay to publish as a form of self-advertisement (indeed in some countries such papers were legally required to be labelled as advertisements) but there will be no place for research by amateurs who write papers because they are interested in a subject and publish them in the hope of interesting others. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joyce Morris, Evaluation/Surveillance Coordinator Oklahoma State Department of Health, 73117
Send response to journal:
|
The authors have missed a critical downside to their proposal, that of affordability. I would never be able to afford to publish if I had to pay the costs cited in the article. The cost would be a significant portion of the grants that my office receives as well as provides. When I weigh the services I can provide versus letting others know the results I have to come down on providing the services. Competing interests: Receive funds and provide funds for work that might be publishable. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Frank J Leavitt, Chairman, Centre for Asian and International Bioethics Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, Israel. 84105
Send response to journal:
|
Alan W. Bates and Joyce Morris are quite right. When I first started to take an interest in medical ethics, I had only outside lecturer positions at low salaries which came in only eight months of the year. (It may be of medical interest that university outside lecturers and their families need to eat only eight months of the year.) It was hard enough to pay for transportation to libraries to get the information I needed for writing the articles which eventually lead to an academic appointment. Paying to have them published would have made it impossible for me to get started. When I retire, such a policy would probably make it impossible for me to continue to submit articles. The idea of charging authors is frightening. Competing interests: I am an author who has not always had, and may not have in the future, money to pay for having my articles published. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Frank J.J. Conijn, PT, editor Physical Therapist's Literature Update Amsterdam, The Netherlands
Send response to journal:
|
In my opinion, the previous authors have some valid points, which will make a transition to an author pays system difficult, if not deemed to fail. I wonder whether a lower online access price would be a solution? Some journals charge as much as $ 30.- for one article to download from the internet. These are ridiculous prices. People will (relatively) rarely pay that, and will rather go to, or order through, a university or other medical library were the article can be obtained for a fraction of that price, so in terms of commercial interest, such high internet access prices will have a low yield anyway. Frank Conijn, PT Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Yodi Mahendradhata, research assistant Public Health Department,Prince Leopold Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp 2000 Belgium
Send response to journal:
|
Sir- I applaud the intentions of the author pay model to narrow the digital divide by increasing access of developing countries to original research. I have the impression though another 'divide' has been overlooked, the publishing divide between researchers from developed and developing countries. This maybe widened instead of narrowed if the proposed model is implemented. Researchers in developing countries are having enough difficulty today to write good quality research articles. Imposing fees on them to publish their works could further demotivate many to make the effort. I have accessed the BioMed journals myself to explore possibilities to publish works we carried out back home in in Indonesia, but I have to reconsider after knowing the entailed costs to authors. One can think of exclusion criterias, but probably that would be something tricky to work out in details. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Peter Suber, Professor of Philosophy Earlham College, Richmond, Indiana 47374
Send response to journal:
|
Many reader responses to the editorial are variations on the theme that authors cannot afford to pay to publish their work, especially young scientists and those from developing countries. This is a real problem, but the editorial described three actual or potential developments that would make it unnecessary for authors to pay these fees. First, the editorial advocated that funding agencies treat the cost of publishing an article as part of the cost of research. Not all research is funded and not all funding agencies have agreed to this policy. But if this model will work anywhere, it will work in the natural sciences, where most research is funded. Moreover, funding agencies are seriously considering the policy to pay the processing fees charged by open-access journals. If this is too speculative, then consider the two solutions that already exist (following). Second, BioMed Central offers institutional memberships that have the effect of waiving the processing fees for all researchers employed by an institutional member. The editorial listed some notable institutions that have decided to subsidize the fees in this way. Third, as the editorial noted, open-access journals tend to waive processing charges in cases of financial hardship. This is the express policy of both BioMed Central and the Public Library of Science. While the editorial offered these three answers to the objection, it should have avoided the unfortunate and inaccurate phrase "author pays" to describe this business model. The open-access business model is that someone at the author's end of the transaction should pay the costs of publication, rather than someone at the reader's end of the transaction (such as the reader or the reader's library). If the costs of dissemination are fully covered by the author's sponsor, then readers will need no sponsor of their own and can enjoy free access to this body of literature. But the charges needn't be paid by authors themselves and will usually be paid by the author's employer, research grant, or government. We must still solve the problem of persuading author sponsors to pay these fees so that authors needn't do so themselves. But one purpose of the editorial was to report progress on just this front. Finally, the objection that these fees will corrupt the peer-review process is misplaced or premature. Currently open-access journals only charge the processing fee after a paper has been accepted by the peer- review process. Charging only a post-acceptance fee solves the problem. But for journals with a high rejection rate, the fee must be high enough to cover the costs of reviewing rejected papers. Some journals might want to lower this barrier by separating submission fees from dissemination fees. But if they do, then the submission fees will be pegged to costs of peer review, with nothing left over corrupt the editors. I suspect that very few journals will split submission fees from dissemination fees, since submission fees will deter submissions and invite the objection that the money will corrupt the editorial process. Most will avoid both problems by sticking with a single post-acceptance fee. But since this is a mere prediction, I'm happy to put my response this way: let's reserve this objection until we see journals charging submission fees, or pre-acceptance fees, that are suspiciously high. Peter Suber Professor of Philosophy Earlham College Richmond, Indiana 47374 USA Competing interests: I have published articles defending the same idea. (Is this a competing interest or a credential?) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
C. Raina MacIntyre, Senior Lecturer National Centre for Immunisation Research, Children's Hospital at Westmead, Australia
Send response to journal:
|
The suggestions raised by Delamonte et al in the editorial "Scientific literature's open sesame?" are interesting and would certainly have great potential in an egalitarian word where all researchers had access to similar resources and funding support. However, we do not live in such a world, and I am afraid that such a policy would further widen the chasm between the developed and developing world. Richard Hortons' recent editorial in the Lancet highlights the systematic bias in the medical literature against research from developing countries and about diseases of poverty. This bias is well documented under the current system of medical publishing, and would surely only increase under an author-pays system. If such a system were to become the norm, perhaps a fair option would be to have means-tested payments by authors, with reduced (or even waived) fees for researchers of low means (such as students and other researchers without significant funding support). References: 1. Horton, R. Medical journals: evidence of bias against the diseases of poverty. The Lancet. 2003; 361 Competing interests: I am an editor of Epidemiology & Infection. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Joseph C. Watine, consultant, laboratory medicine Hôpital de Rodez, France
Send response to journal:
|
When he first published “A la recherche du temps perdu”, Marcel Proust had to pay because André Gide, who reviewed his manuscript, did not understand how good it was. Except for a few other notable other exceptions like this one, in literature, the authors who are charged are not considered to be the most gifted ones. Isn’t this system a good one, even if imperfect? Shouldn’t biomedical publishing try to imitate this system? If yes, it is the peer review process which should probably change. In particular reviewers should be paid and should not remain anonymous. Competing interests: I am a bad author and I appreciate to publish free of charge |
|||
|
|
|||
|
douglas salmon, gp partner birmingham b20 3he
Send response to journal:
|
perhaps the BMJ could visit my favourite eatery and convince the
manager that instead of me paying him for the meal, he should pay me to
eat there.
Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
David C prosser, SPARC Europe Director 99 Banbury Road, Oxford, UK, OX2 0JA
Send response to journal:
|
Alan Bates asks how likely it is that the NHS will pay the publication costs of its employees. Well, the NHS has just signed a deal with BioMedCentral such that publication charges will waived for all NHS researchers. Mr Bates can now publish unlimited papers in BioMedCentral journals at no charge to him (provided they pass the peer review!) and he will have the advantage of knowing that his papers can be accessed by anybody connected to the internet. A growing number of institutions worldwide are making similar arrangements with BioMedCentral (see http://www.biomedcentral.com/inst/). Just as few researchers pay for lab materials, research students, lab space, heating and lighting, etc. out of their own pocket, few would pay for publication charges. Rather, the charges would be included in grants or covered by their institutions (using funds saved from reductions in journal subscription). Then all authors would have the benefit of knowing that their papers could be accessed by all interested readers, not just those lucky enough to be somewhere with a subscription! Competing interests: David Prosser is Director of SPARC Europe, the alliance for change in scholarly communication (http://www.sparceurope.org) |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trevor G Marshall, Managing Editor JOIMR,org,Thousand Oaks, California 91360
Send response to journal:
|
There already is a better way - 'Collaborative Publishing' There already is a better way - 'Collaborative Publishing for the 21st Century' - which we have implemented at JOIMR.org, the "Journal Of Independent Medical Research". No money changes hands - all participation in JOIMR is voluntary, from the Advisory Board right down to the folks coding the website. Each of us benefits from the public service that we are sharing. There are no perks, no glitz. There is conflict inherent in the business model of medical journals. The
journals are trying to deliver a stream of topical and
accurate articles that will be useful and interesting to their subscribers.
Authors, on the other hand, need to be able to disseminate their results,
however esoteric those results might be. In the past, the journals have
wielded an iron fist in this struggle, with authors having no choice but
'not rock the boat'. The Internet is changing that balance.
Publication in JOIMR is instantaneous - once the paper is posted on the JOIMR website it starts to become disseminated. And the peer review process also starts. For time-critical manuscripts like Prof Bob Lee's molecular analysis of the SARS coronavirus and its therapeutic implications, there is no time-delay waiting for some faceless 'experts' to pronounce judgment on the paper's quality. The paper will stand on its own two feet, and when recommended by two 'qualified reviewers', will be formally published (JOIMR is preparing the paperwork so that we can send all our published papers through to the PubMed Central Archive of Life Science Journals). If a print-journal editor decides that all or part of a JOIMR manuscript might be useful (or interesting) to his/her readership, the editor is free to reproduce it, in full or in part. The copyright model at JOIMR allows the author(s) to retain legal copyright, but licenses the dissemination of the document in perpetuity (if properly cited). So the JOIMR publishing model allows journal editors to focus on what they do best, servicing their subscribers, while the authors focus on what they do best (advancing science). JOIMR is currently a tiny, startup, operation. We cannot cope with hundreds of papers a month. But our publishing model can be replicated with ease - by central libraries - universities - regional development centres - truly 'Collaborative Publishing for the 21st Century'. 1. Russo E: Bypassing Peer Review. The Scientist 14[5]:1, Mar.6,2000 [FullText] Competing interests: Our paper on the etiology of, and emerging treatments for, Sarcoidosis, were rejected by BMJ as being "too specialized" for BMJ readership. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
I find it surprising that anyone involved in clinical research should be at all worried at the thought of having to pay relatively modest amounts, such as $500, for having their work made freely available to the world. Clinical research is hugely expensive. Even a small clinical study can cost tens of thousands of pounds to run, when all the true costs are included, and the costs of large studies with hundreds of patients are simply horrifying. In comparison, $500 for publishing an article is tiny, and certainly seems a small price to pay for the dramatic increase in potential readership it brings. After all, what is the point of doing the research if the results are not going to be disseminated? If anyone thinks that author fees would be a substantial proportion of the cost of their research, then either: 1. They haven't properly costed the research. Perhaps they are thinking only about the extra grant for a particular project, and are ignoring the fact that it requires a great deal of time from many people whose salaries are paid independently of the grant for that project and use of facilities that are also paid for out of a separate pot. or 2. Their research is done on such a small budget that it is a completely mickey mouse piece of work that no-one else would want to read anyway. Competing interests: All the papers I write are written on a commercial basis on behalf of my clients, so any author charges are passed on to my clients and don't affect me. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Trevor G Marshall, Editor JOIMR.org, California 91360
Send response to journal:
|
Adam Jacobs' "Let's put things in perspective" assumes that Medical Publishing revolves around "Clinical Research". Since some Journal editors are losing sight of the value of "case studies", and seem to disregard the intellectual "hypotheses" coming from the brains of clever individuals, it is probably a good time to remind ourselves that most of the medicine we practice today did not stem from clinical trials, it arose from the great minds which came before us. I doubt whether Einstein could have hired Dr Jacobs to write his "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies"(1905) or indeed whether anybody besides Henle (1840) or Koch (1882) could possibly have described microbial pathogenesis. In my opinion, the last 30 years of 'Scientific' Medicine represent a passing phase, and this aberration is self limiting. Once a CURE is found for any disease, then there is no more demand for clinical trials of drugs that are "30% effective". We will again return to the fundamentals, and away from these endless clinical trials. And will those cures be found by a clinical trial? Far more likely that they will be found by the Henles and Kochs and Einsteins of our world. If they wish to share their thoughts, then it is criminal for us to charge them one cent for that 'privilege'. Competing interests: I have to admit to personally pursuing "Mickey Mouse" research, and am the founding Editor of the "Journal Of Independent Medical Research" |
|||
|
|
|||
|
James E. Till, Senior Scientist Emeritus University Health Network, Toronto,, Canada M5G 2M9
Send response to journal:
|
I'm somewhat surprised that none of the previous respondents have mentioned the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) (http://www.soros.org/openaccess/), an initiative designed to accelerate progress in the international effort to make research articles in all academic fields freely available on the internet. Fostering more open-access journals is one of two recommended complementary strategies (the other is the self-archiving, by authors, of their refereed journal articles in open electronic archives). Various approaches that open-access journals might use to pay their operating expenses are outlined in a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) section of the BOAI website (see "New Journals"). Competing interests: I'm a supporter of the BOAI |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Adam Jacobs, Director Dianthus Medical Limited, London SW19 3TZ
Send response to journal:
|
Trevor Marshall makes a good point. My previous response did indeed assume that medical publishing revolves around clinical research, and Marshall is right to point out that there is also a legitimate place for publishing random thoughts. I agree entirely that random thoughts are often the way scientific progress is made. The question is, what is the best forum for publishing random thoughts? I don’t know the answer to this. The traditional publishing model doesn’t exactly encourage them any more than the ‘author pays’ model. ‘Letters to the editor’ or features such as BMJ rapid responses are a good forum for exchanging ideas, but usually only in response to other work that has already been published. If the JOIMR can solve this problem, then I wish it well. Marshall is also correct in his assumption that Einstein could not have hired me to write his papers. First, 1905 was a good few years before I was born, and second, I don’t understand physics. Competing interests: I had originally intended to study physics at university, but switched to chemistry at the end of my first year, almost entirely as a result of my failure to get to grips with Mr Einstein's work. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Leo J.M. Waaijers, University Librarian P.O. Box 9100, 6700 HA Wageningen, The Neteherlands.
Send response to journal:
|
Last year my library paid 2.8 million Euro for subscriptions to refereed journals. We could have saved this amount in a completely Open Access world, as all articles would be freely available on the internet. Instead, we had to pay for the refereeing, editing and posting on the internet of the articles that my university published. It concerned 1413 articles. To the amount of 500 Euro each this makes 700.000 Euro. So, for me there is no debate about the question in which world scholarly communication is cheaper. Moreover, the ultimate result is far more accessible in the Open Access world than in the Subscription world. The point is, however: how do we get from A to B. We cannot do away with the old journals before we have the new ones in place, impact factored and branded. In the meantime we have to pay in both worlds. The transfer is further impeded by the recent licensing contracts with the big commercial publishers. Any strategic ideas for this journey? Competing interests: I am the librarian of Wageningen University & Research Centre. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Belinda J Fenter, Research Assistant SarcInfo, Fort Worth, Texas 76116
Send response to journal:
|
The current system of distribution of scientific articles is reaching a crisis point within the medical libraries. The increasing subscription costs for refereed journals, coupled with budget cuts and the new model of passing along the cost of refereeing and editing of an institution's own research are a triple whammy to our universities. How far will the current oligopolic subscription system proceed before we see the need to nurture the open access journals? The issue is efficient and accurate peer review, and then distribution. Distribution with the current system is stymied because of costs, as subscriptions are dropped by our libraries each year because of budget limitations. An increasing number of interlibrary loan requests result in only one resource for an article: the National Library of Medicine. Left alone, the current system will continue to squeeze out the smaller distribution channels. We have no choice but to continue with the current publishing paradigm, but, at the same time, we have to put some energy in building the road from A to B, as Waaijers [1] mentioned. Distribution can be handled by PubMed Central, if they can be motivated to accept new publishing paradigms. We need a realistic appraisal of what constitutes effective peer review. We need accountability. We need systems which allow the measurement of the effectiveness of the peer review that we libraries/public are already paying for. There needs to be a system through which authors could identify inadequate peer review. The concept that an author must keep submitting a paper to journal after journal until it finally passes through a peer review is ridiculously wasteful of resources. Open access journals need nurturing, allowing them to prove their mettle as they evolve. Our goal should be to cut cost without sacrificing quality and integrity. Although I suggested that PubMed Central can be a central pillar for any new publishing paradigm, I have to say that my recent conversation with a PMC executive left me with the impression that they feel no sense of urgency for change. I didn't sense any specific responsibility to help trim the expenditures of our libraries, or the expenditures of authors. Additionally, their requirement that any new journal must appoint three current National Institutes of Health- equivalent grant recipients to that journal's editorial board seems draconian, at best. There must be an answer. Thanks to Tony Delamothe, and the BMJ, for helping us to work towards it. 1. Waaijers LJM: How to get from A to B?. [Rapid Response] BMJ 2003; 15 May #32278: Available from URL http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/326/7396/945#32278 (Acessed 15 May 2003) Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Meg White, Director, Publisher Solutions WKH Medical Research 530 Walnut St Philadelphia PA 19460
Send response to journal:
|
In reference to the following editorial, should it not have been disclosed that Ms. Godlee was previously employed as in a senior executive role at BioMed Central? "Scientific Literature's Open Sesame," British Medical Journal, (May 3, 2003). Competing interests: employed at a for profit publisher |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fernando Fernandez-Llimos, Senior researcher Research Group on Pharmaceutical Care. Faculty of Pharmacy. University of Granada. 18071 Granada (Sp
Send response to journal:
|
EDITOR- After Delamothe’s editorial(1), a lot of discussion has appeared, on BMJ about this new way of understanding scientific communication. Everybody is accepting that money should be paid for the ‘editorial process’. Why?. I am sure that distribute, in 1665, several thousands Journal des Scavans or Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, would be very expensive. We should feel lucky to live in XXI century, where editorial costs could tend to zero. We don’t have to move paper on submissions, or to the referees, or from the referees, or in corrections, or after them. We have the Internet and the email. So, is such amount of money we are paying to support peer reviewing process?. We mean that ineffective process with little impact on paper’s quality(2), and “based on faith of its effects, rather than on facts”?. Let me point something forgotten in this discussion: I think we pay a fee to be indexed. Producing an electronic journal, even peer reviewed, is very cheap. It solves the accessibility problem, and it is easily distributed, recorded, and stored. But, all of us know that there is no life outside secondary sources. We are paying to a journal that has reached the status of indexed, mainly in Medline or in Science Citation Index. Those databases insist on the necessity of selecting journals to be indexed. Why?. Nobody knows in XXI century. All major secondary sources are from United States of America. Their geographic and language bias has been reported. So, not only in clinical evidence sources(3), but in all kind of paper’s database, “is there a role – possibly a responsibility - for Britain” and all Europe here?. Is it not the time to face that very old Royal Society’s utopia(4) about a self-indexed international catalogue of scientific literature? 1 Delamothe T, Godlee F, Smith R. Scientific literature’s open sesame?. BMJ 2003; 326: 945. 2 White C. Little evidence for effectiveness of scientific peer review. BMJ 2003; 326: 241. 3 Smith R, Chalmers I. Britain’s gift: a “MEDLINE” of synthesised evidence. BMJ 2001; 323: 1437-1438. 4 Anonymous. International catalogue of scientific literature. JAMA 1901; 36: 1121. Competing interests: FFL promote electronic journals to enhance knowledge accesibility all over the world |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Fiona Godlee, Head of BMJ Knowledge/Executive Editor, Clinical Evidence BMJPG, London WC1h 9JR
Send response to journal:
|
Meg White is absolutely right - the competing interest statement at the end of this editorial should have included mention of my previous position as Editorial Director for Medicine at BioMed Central. Its failure to do so was a combination of clerical and editorial error, which in view of my respect and affection for Tony Delamothe I won't go into here. I held this executive role at BioMed Central for two years, during which time I had share options in the company. On leaving the post, these options reverted to the company, with no financial benefit to me. However, I remain, as is perhaps clear from the editorial, a strong supporter of BioMed Central and other high quality open access initiatives. The competing interest statement should have made this explicit. Competing interests: Previously Editorial Director for Medicine, BioMed Central and still a strong supporter of this and other high quality open access initiatives |
|||