Scientific literature's open sesame?
BMJ 2003; 326 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7396.945 (Published 03 May 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:945All 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- 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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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"
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
It is possible
to imagine a day when only mediocre research gets submitted to print
journals, and the really exciting findings are transmitted by Newswire and
website [1].
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Undeclared competing interest
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
Competing interests: No competing interests