Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2003 Apr 5;326(7392):765. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7392.765/b

“Author pays” as new science publishing model

Several models of scientific publishing are likely

Martin Richardson 1
PMCID: PMC1125669  PMID: 12676857

Editor—According to Delamothe, a consensus is emerging on how the internet will change the economics of scientific publishing.1 As far as I am aware no journal relying solely on charging authors for online publication has yet managed to derive sufficient revenue from this model to meet its running costs.

Our approach at Oxford University Press is to maximise the dissemination of our online journals by adapting the traditional subscription model to extend online access to groups of institutions, companies, whole states, or countries. We also offer free online access to the poorest developing countries, and we participate in archives such as those provided by PubMed Central and HighWire Press. In addition, we are experimenting with other pricing models, including charging authors for publication and providing “free” online versions subsidised from print revenues or by advertising.

I think that, although the virtual world is changing the economics of scientific publishing, in the real world no single model is likely to meet the needs of every author or reader. Open access journals funded by author charges may eventually prove to be the economic model of choice in some cases, but most journals, unless they also benefit from grants or subsidies, will need to rely on a mixture of economic models to continue to support the costs of online publication.

Footnotes

Competing interests: MR is journals director at Oxford University Press, a department of the University of Oxford.

References

  • 1.Delamothe T. “Author pays” may be the new science publishing model. BMJ. 2003;326:182. . (25 January.) [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2003 Apr 5;326(7392):765.

Cautious welcome is in order

Ahmad Risk 1

Editor—I welcome the development outlined by Delamothe that authors should pay for publication of their work, while appreciating the difficulties many journals face in providing free access, as well as the authors' desire to publish and retain copyright of their work.1-1 However, my welcome is qualified.

Firstly, Delamothe talks of the hope that agencies funding the original research will agree to foot the authors' bill. What happens with authors who do not have such a luxury?

Secondly, what effect will the authors pay model have on research from developing countries reaching the wider audience it craves and deserves? Such research, of course, is already disadvantaged on many fronts.

Footnotes

Competing interests: AR is a member of the editorial board of the Journal of Medical Internet Research, an author-pays journal and the official journal of the Internet Healthcare Coalition, of which AR is chair.

References

  • 1-1.Delamothe T. “Author pays” may be the new science publishing model. BMJ. 2003;326:182. . (25 January.) [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2003 Apr 5;326(7392):765.

It's time to wake up to the hidden agendas of free journals

Debasish Debnath 1

Editor—The concept of free online journals seems too good to be true.2-1,2-2 Certain hidden agendas need attention.

Firstly, journals are essentially asking the authors to ask their sponsors to pay for the cost of publication. Industries would grab such opportunities to publish their works. Journals might then be flooded with publications sponsored by industry. Such publications would convey the conclusions favourable to the industry, and positive results would be published more often than negative ones.2-3 Researchers' growing dependence on the industry, accompanied by a decline in support from the government, makes this a distinct probability.2-3

Secondly, researchers who do not have major sponsors would miss out on publications in journals of their choice.

Thirdly, the fact that industry would pay for the cost of publication means two tier journals would be produced. The so called free journal might in effect be the proxy mouthpiece of the industry, which is exemplified by the existing notion that free journals are simply vehicles for advertisements.2-4

Fourthly, the “paid” journals would struggle to cater in the conventional way. Worse, if the authors have to reach into their pockets to pay (in the absence of sponsorship) £936 ($1500, €1460) per article, it would be interesting to see how many papers would be published. In such an eventuality only the “quality” journals would be able to survive. Paradoxically, given the current non-competitive nature of journals, some may view this as a blessing in disguise.2-5

Footnotes

Competing interests: None declared.

References

  • 2-1.Delamothe T. “Authors pays” may be the new science publishing model. BMJ. 2003;326:182. . (25 January.) [Google Scholar]
  • 2-2.Eaton L. Online medical publishing venture gets under way. BMJ. 2003;326:11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7379.11/b. . (4 January.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2-3.Hopkins J. Industry is deeply involved in funding US research. BMJ. 2003;326:179. [Google Scholar]
  • 2-4.Rennie D. The present state of medical journals. Lancet. 1998;352(suppl 2):18–22. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(98)90295-1. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2-5.Smith R. The market for medical journals is “anticompetitive,” says expert. BMJ. 2003;326:182. doi: 10.1136/bmj.326.7382.182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES