PLoS policy on academic editor payment

["Mark Patterson" <mpatterson@plos.org>]

We've been asked about the PLoS policy regarding payment to the 
academic editors of PLoS Journals.  We don't pay the academic 
editors of the PLoS journals, but the Editors-in-Chief of PLoS 
Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics and PLoS Pathogens each have 
a fixed annual expenses budget to cover journal-related travel 
and other essential journal-related expenses.  As far as waivers 
are concerned, editors and reviewers have no access to author 
payment information, so that the ability to pay the publication 
fee can never influence publishing decisions.

We also agree with Peter and others that there are multiple 
competing interests that need to be disentangled from editorial 
decision-making wherever possible.  This provided the motivation 
for our policy not to include pharmaceutical or medical devices 
advertising in PLoS journals. Editors (as well as authors, 
reviewers etc) are also asked to declare any potential competing 
interests concerning particular papers, and if necessary to 
decline the invitation to handle a paper.  These issues are 
relevant to all journals of course, whether or not they are open 
access.

Mark Patterson
Director of Publishing

Public Library of Science
European Office:
7 Portugal Place
Cambridge
CB5 8AF, UK

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
[mailto:owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Banks
Sent: 14 May 2006 23:24
To: liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
Subject: RE: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial
Independence?

I think Phil is correct--the editorial inducements of page 
charges are not the same as those of author's fees. Our editors 
are paid a contracted amount for managing peer review operations. 
That doesn't go up with the number of submissions, so the editor 
has no financial motivation to accept more papers. Indeed, 
contrary to the absurd proposition that we encouarge editors to 
increase their acceptance rate so that we can make more profit, 
in recent past we have actually done the opposite--in the face of 
soaring submission rates, we required them to REDUCE the 
acceptance rate both so costs and subscription prices could be 
controlled and quality could be maintained.

For example, these are the acceptance rates for Diabetes Care for
the past three years

2003   30.3%
2004  29.6%
2005 20.4%

To Phil's concern about the ethics of editors being compensated 
from processing charges, I will add another one: In clinical 
medicine, a lot of the funding for drug studies comes from 
pharmaceutical companies. Almost any senior researcher worth 
having as an editor will have relationships with one or more drug 
companies (whether consulting, speaking, or grant support). The 
granter-pays model now creates a situation in which the editor 
has a difficult dual interest--both a financial relationship with 
the pharma firm and potential recipient of a portion of 
manuscript fees paid by that firm. Of course, editors of 
traditional journal also have relationships with firms, but the 
money the editorial honoraria they receive from the publisher has 
no direct connection to the firm and the decision to accept or 
reject a manuscript has no personal financial aspect.

I think the OA model for clinical medical journals is going to 
require a great deal more thought about how to isolate the editor 
from pressure by pharmaceutical firms. Anyone who doesn't think 
that pharmaceutical brand managers aren't salivating over the 
chance to pay for manuscripts (chump change for these companies), 
with its attendant potential to influence content, hasn't met 
many brand managers.

Peter Banks
Publisher

Starting June 1, my contact information is:
Peter Banks
Banks Publishing
10332 Main Street
Box 158
Fairfax, VA 22030
Phone  (703) 591-6544
Fax (703) 383-0765
pbanks@bankspub.com

>>> pmd8@cornell.edu 05/11/06 8:05 PM >>>

Matt Cockerill wrote:

"The suggestion that open access journal editors are conflicted 
because their journal's revenue depends on article processing 
charges is really just the same old suggestion that open access 
journals in general are conflicted by article processing charges. 
But as has been widely pointed out, if that is a conflict of 
interest, then all journals with page charges have that same 
conflict of interest. And since traditional publishers justify 
subscription price increases based on the increasing page count 
of their journals, traditional publishers too face the very same 
potential conflict of interest."

Response:

I fail to see this as a strong argument by similarity.  Page 
charges would have the same corruptive effect on editorial 
independence only if editors received a "share of the revenue" 
(Matt's words) for each check that was sent in by authors.  The 
reward system for BMC editors is essentially that of any 
commission salesman.  Accept more articles, get richer.  Their 
business model is that simple.

I am also told by a BMC editor that they are economic 
consequences for waiving article processing fees.  Not only do 
editors forfeit their commission, but they are required to pay 
for these pro bono articles out of their own coffers.  Both of 
these BMC business practices seem to contradict ethical policies 
set up to separate the business interests of the publisher and 
editorial independence.  As I quoted yesterday from the World 
Association of Medical Editors, "Editors-in-chief should 
establish procedures that guard against the influence of 
commercial and personal self-interest on editorial decisions." 
[3]

Moreover, I do not see a strong and direct argument between page 
counts, editorial remuneration, and justification for higher 
subscription prices.  I wouldn't disagree that some editors of 
large journals receive more compensation than editors of smaller 
journals, yet I don't see the direct and immediate link between 
editorial compensation and subscription prices.  A police officer 
may receive a raise at the end of the year for doing good work, 
but the officer that receives a direct cut from every ticket he 
issues has a direct conflict of interest between his financial 
well-being and his obligation to be a fair and honest arbitrator 
of the law.  In the same way, the editorial remuneration 
practices of BMC do not give me assurances that BMC editors are 
fair and honest arbitrators of their editorial responsibilities.

--Phil Davis