Pritpal S Tamber and colleagues argue (p 1575) that all scientific research should be freely and immediately available online. They comment on how much of the cost (up to 30%) of publishers' revenue is used to employ staff and systems to assess current and future subscribers; these costs 'are passed onto the scientific community as part of subscription charges.' They also argue how limited access to the full text of research articles is bad for science: 'Such restrictions make it difficult for researchers to build on the entirety of what has gone before and for readers to check whether they have done so…researchers and clinicians will sometimes make do with the abstract of an article they cannot obtain in full, which in many cases will give them inadequate, if not misleading, information.' A different model is proposed under open-access initiatives whereby authors retain copyright and are charged for publication-BioMed Central (who provide biomedical research online free) currently charge authors US$500 per published article. The newly formed Public Library of Science Biology (PloS Biology) will charge authors US$1500 per article in order to cover costs and publish with unrestricted (open) access.
Pritpal S Tamber comments: "Scientific research should be freely accessible to all. Free access is a public good-much research is publicly funded and involves members of the public as participants. Authors and peer reviewers provide their work free of charge. The cost of peer review and dissemination can, and should be, covered in ways that do not limit access to information and so do not hinder scientific communication."
Counter arguments to open-access initiatives are provided by Brian Crawford from John Wiley Publishing (p 1578). He comments: "The primary weakness inherent in open-access models is that they are based on authors paying for publication, either directly or through sponsorship from institutions or interested third parties. As a result, science will either have a less effective filter, or will require the introduction of new post-publication filtering mechanisms. Neither result can be seen as beneficial to users of published biomedical research."
In an accompanying Commentary (p 1510), Lancet Editor Richard Horton comments: "Open-access initiatives, especially non-profit organisations such as the Public Library of Science, are welcome because they will encourage traditional publishers of medical journals to re-evaluate their contribution to the medical research and clinical communities. The long-term goal for any editor of a primary research medical journal is to strengthen the culture of scientific inquiry and to improve human health. These are the ultimate yardsticks by which readers, authors, funding agencies, librarians, and publishers should judge the success of journals. In the sometimes divisive debate about open access, let us not lose sight of the fact that the publishing model is simply a means to a much greater end, an end that has far too long been neglected."
Contact: Dr. Pritpal S Tamber via Grace Baynes, BioMed Central, Middlesex House, 34-42 Cleveland Street, London W1T 4LB, UK; T): 44-0-20-7631-9988; F): 44-0-20-7580-1938; E): press@biomedcentral.com. Dr. Brian Crawford, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK; T) 44-0-1243-779777; E) brian.crawford@wiley.com.
Journal
The Lancet