Re: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial Independence?

[Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>]

Before this conversation completely goes astray, let me reframe 
my argument:

1) It is not about the integrity of BMC editors.
2) It is not about the merits of Open Access to society.
3) It is not about whether ethical breaches have been perpetrated by
   other publishers.
4) This argument is about whether BMC's business model puts editorial
   independence at risk.

Now, let us review the facts, and if I get any wrong, please 
correct me:

1) BMC rewards their editors with 20% of the author processing charge.
2) BMC requires editors to fund manuscripts that are accepted from
   those who cannot pay.
3) Biomedical ethics organizations (COPE, WAME, ICMJE) have
   guidelines that explicitly require the editorial decision-making to
   be separated by the commercial interests of the journal, and,
   BMC is a member of the first two organizations.

Discussion:

Again, this is not to accuse BMC editors of being unscrupulous. 
I am not privy to their decision-making, and what they do with 
the commission they receive from BMC for every paying author they 
can attract.  Whether they simply pocket this money or use it to 
sponsor poor authors is up to them.  In addition, most BMC 
journals publish very few articles per month.  Richard's journal 
(Nutrition and Metabolism) averages about 3 published 
articles/month, so I can't imagine that his editorial expenses 
are high.  I also cannot imagine that BMC journals, many of which 
publish ten or fewer articles per year, have the same kind of 
rejection rates of other prestigious journals they like to 
compare themselves with.

For most of my professional life, I have been a selector of 
science journals.  If I told you that, in lieu of a salary, I 
received 20% of the subscription price for each journal I keep in 
my collection, you would be aghast.  If I told you that I had to 
pay for publications from developing countries out of my own 
commission, you would be outraged.  If I told you that Elsevier 
sent me a gift (a new Subaru Legacy Outback wagon, 2.5L, Atlantic 
blue pearl, with heated leather seats), for giving them more 
business last year, you would accuse me of abdicating my 
profession duties for personal financial advancement.  I would 
recoil in shock that anyone would ever question my loyalty and 
integrity!

Yet unfortunately, I paid a meager salary and derive no bonuses 
from my decision-making.  I dream of replacing our old 1996 
Subaru hatchback, but this has no bearing on how I decide where 
my library spends its money.  I am insulated from the possible 
influences of a tip-economy, and hope that my faculty believe 
that I am a fair and honest manager of our institution's funds.

Editors are the Gatekeepers of Science.  If we want these 
individuals to be unbiased arbitrators of the scientific record, 
we need to stop rewarding them as commission salesmen.

--Phil Davis

At 06:41 PM 5/14/2006, Richard Feinman wrote:

> "Accepting everything you are offered is never a good strategy"
> and is not any fun. One reason people become editors and/or
> willing to be reviewers without remuneration is that we actually
> like to read good science (can you imagine?)  The absolute bane
> of these jobs is that you have to read a lot of bad papers.
> Nobodies going to go looking for them.
>
> = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
>
> Re: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial   Independence?
>
> While it is true that a new journal does need to solicit MSS in
> order to get established, its editor and publisher are all too
> well aware that unless these are of high quality, the journal
> will never actually make it.  They therefore spend a lot of
> effort soliciting articles from the best authors they can.
> Accepting everything you are offered is never a good strategy.
>
> Sally Morris, Chief Executive