Pleas to scrap charges for access to bmj.com, the online version of the BMJ , failed to win support from representatives at the BMA’s annual meeting, who voted that subscriptions for certain parts of the journal should continue.
Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library, accused the BMA of hypocrisy for denying free access to the BMJ ’s website while expressing concern for doctors from developing countries and the populations they serve. "The creation of a fully open access electronic BMJ was the most important single advance in medical publishing during my lifetime. Not only did it bring research, educational material, news, and views to a very wide readership at no cost to readers; it developed a unique forum for lively debate, involving patients as well as professionals," he said.
Professor Chalmers pointed out that the BMJ Publishing Group made an annual profit in the region of £6m-£7m and did not need to charge some readers subscriptions to access content online. "I do not want to see unreserved greed take over the association," he said.
Brian Keighley, a non-executive director of the BMJ Publishing Group, supported the introduction of charges for certain parts of bmj.com for readers from countries not listed in the World Health Organization’s HINARI (Health InterNetwork Access to Research Initiative) project or devastated by the recent tsunami. "Personally, I always found it confusing that we could own such valuable intellectual property and then give it away. The journal’s research papers remain free to all," he said.
Kate Adams, from the conference of local medical committees and also a non-executive member of the BMJ Publishing Group board, agreed. "The sum of £20 [$11; €30; charged for certain parts of bmj.com] is peanuts and it is tax deductible," she said. "It is important that we invest in the journal."
Michael Chamberlain, chairman of the board of the BMJ Publishing Group, defended the decision to introduce charges. "The BMJ offers more free access than any other comparable journal in the world, and we have to continue to invest in our core product," he said.
The motion to press the BMJ Publishing Group to abolish the charges, which was presented by Professor Chalmers on behalf of Oxford, West Berkshire, Barnet, and Finchley divisions, needed a two thirds majority to be carried by conference and was lost.