Re: http://www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Hypermail/Amsci/3123.html
Dr. Vinod Scaria is levelling charges of monopolism at BioMed Central that are difficult to understand, unjustified, and unsubstantiated. This is unfortunate and not very helpful to Open Access. But buried in his posting is the expression of concern for the barriers to science communication (be it as reader of toll-access literature or as author of input-paid open access articles) impecunious scientists in developing countries face. We are sympathetic to that. Well-intentioned initiatives like HINARI (WHO) and AGORA (FAO) attempt to alleviate some of the disadvantages developing countries have by making toll-access science literature available to them at reduced rates or even free. However well-intentioned, I'm afraid these initiatives amount to little more than window-dressing in many cases. Sure, some of the poorest countries, where scientists are as scarce as polar bears in the Sahara, have free access. But others, who have an active scientific community, have been exempted from the schemes by the toll-access publishers, because the money made from those countries would be lost to the publishers if these countries were included, however poor they may be. Elaborate security measures are put in place to prevent 'leakage' or 'seepage' of the material from countries that have free or discounted access to wealthier countries. This is very logical, from a toll-access publisher's point of view, especially in regard of online versions which are easily shared across borders, and a consequence of the subscription-based publishing model. In BioMed Central's Open Access model we see the cost of publishing as an integral part of the cost of doing research. Research projects, and consequently their publication, are not funded to the same level in developing countries as in the OECD states. This must, of course, be addressed. Input-paid Open Access offers a much more robust possibility for differential pricing. There is no risk of 'leakage' or 'seepage' of the material, by the very definition of Open Access. Transactions can be tailored to individual circumstances of authors or institutions without upsetting the principles of the model in any way. Researchers in developing countries can easily be given discounts or even waivers (as indeed we put in practice at BioMed Central). Thus far, we find that there isn't the slightest unease of authors from wealthier countries at the thought of Article Processing Charges we ask them to pay containing an element of 'subsidy' to support articles from their colleagues in less advantaged countries. Jan Velterop BioMed Central > -----Original Message----- > From: Dr. Vinod Scaria [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: 30 October 2003 17:08 > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Central vs. Distributed Archives > > > CALICUT MEDICAL JOURNAL > http://www.calicutmedicaljournal.org > ARCHIVES AT COGPRINTS > *************************************************************** > > As we all know, Open Access Publishing is not gaining the momentum as > far as Journals published from Developing Countries are > concerned [with > reference to western Journals]. Many reasons can be attributed like: > > 1. Monopolistic nature of Open Access Publishers like > BioMedCentral > http://www. biomedcentral.com which pursues the "author pays" > and would drive away any author from Developing countries. Thus > obviously publishers from Developing countries would have second > thoughts before starting one at BMC. > > By meaning monopolistic, I refer to the almost complete > control over open > access publishing- say about >75% of open Access Journals in > Medicine.and > Mega organisations like PLOS are crunching the small > publishers, as they > can easily override the smaller ones with the mega funding they have. > see: http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7392/766#art > > 2. As I previously stated in my Editorial in Internet Health- > www. virtualmed. netfirms. > com/internethealth/articleapril03. html , > the fear of losing revenue, which are the sole source of > sustenance > of many Journals [though some make a meagre profit]. > > 3. Lack of sufficient expertise and > exposure to Open Access Publishing. >> > www. virtualmed. netfirms. com/internethealth/opinion0303. html > http://bmj. com/cgi/eletters/326/7382/182/b << > > But recent developments are worth mentioning - at least from > India. Online > Journal of Health and Allied Sciences www. ojhas. org , India's first > Online BioMedical journal declared a couple of months back that they > would go Open. > > [I am in the Editorial board of OJHAS from Sept 2003]. OJHAS is > edited and published by a small group of scholars with no external > support. Everything from Web Design to Editing and Review are done by > voluntarily by the Editorial team. It also stands as a fine example of > the fact that Open Access Journals can indeed be successfully > organised > and can indeed survive without an "author pays" model. > > Now coming to the Archival, Cogprints was our first choice > for many reasons > > 1] It offers interoperability [as mentioned by Harnad] > 2] It offers unmatched popularity > 3] It has been there for years and we can be sure of the permanence > 4] It is of course FREE. > > And as Harnad suggested, there is no reason why Journals should not > be archived at Open Archives, be it self maintained repositories or > Centralised ones. In fact Open Archiving of electronic journals is > the need of the hour because our own studies [unpublished] show that > Electronic journals are just as ephemeral as websites. Scholarly > communication should never be lost at the cost of copyright > restrictions. Many of these journals have perhaps done more harm than > good by locking the access by copyright restrictions. > > Moreover, electronic journals are equally vulnerable to the vagaries > of the Internet. For example, JMIR www. jmir. org went > suddenly offline > some time back [i think it was an year or so] making the whole content > inaccessible. [But it reappeared later and now is an Open > Access Journal]. > > Thus in short, OPen Archiving of Journals as a whole is perhaps to be > discussed in a wider perspective than just making it OPEN. The major > emphasis should be the PERMANENCE of Open Archiving. I hope > this post will > surely trigger a debate on the topic. > > Kind regards > > Dr. Vinod Scaria > Executive Editor: Calicut Medical Journal > Assoc Editor: Online Journal of Health and Allied Sciences > Editor in Chief: Internet He@ lth > > WEB: www. drvinod. netfirms. com > MAIL: vinodscaria@yahoo. co. in > Mobile: +91 98474 65452
