Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial Independence?

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Matt Cockerill at BMC wrote: "In fact, according to the terms of 
the new agreement (under which more than half of BioMed Central's 
independent titles operate), journal editors *do* receive 
payment, in the form of a share of the revenue from article 
processing charges for their journal."

Response:

I am not a medical journal editor, but this statement by the 
publisher of BioMed Central seems to have direct conflicts with 
Editorial Independence, and leads one to suspect whether BMC 
editors have financial conflicts of interest that prevent them 
from exercising good judgement.

BioMed Central is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics 
(COPE), which includes the following definition under Conflicts 
of interest, "Conflicts of interest arise when authors, 
reviewers, or editors have interests that are not fully apparent 
and that may influence their judgements on what is published ... 
they may be personal, commercial, political, academic or 
financial." [1]

According to the policy of the World Association of Medical 
Editors, under The Responsibilities of Medical Editors, "[Editors 
must] assure honesty and integrity of the content of their 
journal and minimize bias by ... separating the editorial and 
business functions of the journal." [2] Mr. Cockerill's 
description of how BMC editors get paid is clearly is in conflict 
with this policy.

In addition, under the WAME section, Editorial Independence:

"Editors-in-chief should have full authority over the editorial 
content of the journal, generally referred to as "editorial 
independence." Owners should not interfere in the evaluation, 
selection, or editing of individual articles, either directly or 
by creating an environment in which editorial decisions are 
strongly influenced." [3]

"Editorial decisions should be based mainly on the validity of 
the work and its importance to readers, not the commercial 
success of the journal. Editors should be free to express 
critical but responsible views about all aspects of medicine 
without fear of retribution, even if these views might conflict 
with the commercial goals of the publisher." [3]

"Editors-in-chief should establish procedures that guard against 
the influence of commercial and personal self-interest on 
editorial decisions." [3]

And lastly, BMC states that they endorse the World Association of 
Medical Editors Policy Statement on Geopolitical Intrusion on 
Editorial Decisions, which reads, "Editorial decisions should not 
be affected by the origins of the manuscript, including the 
nationality, ethnicity, political beliefs, race, or religion of 
the authors.  Decisions to edit and publish should not be 
determined by the policies of governments or other agencies 
outside of the journal itself." [4]

Yet, this seems to contradict the recent criticism of BMC's 
management decision to reduce the number of author processing 
charge waivers they will allow their editors to distribute to 
authors in developing countries.  From the recent article 
appearing in the Scientist, "editors are protesting recent 
increases in the APC, and reductions in the number of waivers 
that editors are permitted to offer to contributors who cannot 
afford those costs, among other issues. Moreover, they are 
protesting what they say is BMC's apparent refusal to cooperate 
with editors to resolve these complaints." [5]

In conclusion, I was more happy with the original claim that BMC 
editors don't get paid for their work.  It is troubling that 
editors are rewarded piecemeal for every article they accept, and 
dissuaded to accept manuscripts from authors who can't afford to 
pay.  BMC's business model clearly set up economic incentives 
that are in conflict with editorial independence and the 
integrity of the scientific record.

--Phil Davis


NOTES:
1. http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/guidelines
2. http://www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm#responsibilities
3. http://www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm#independence
4. http://www.wame.org/wamestmt.htm#geopolitical
5. http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23352/