Re: AAP Statement Regarding the NIH Policy

[Jan Velterop <velteropvonleyden@btinternet.com>]

It should be clear that the stance taken by the AAP is not taken by 
all publishers. In the view of BioMed Central, a non-subsidised 
private company, the NIH policy is perfectly compatible with free 
market investment into publishing. Even a policy which would allow no 
delay at all in openness is compatible with private enterprise and 
free market conditions. Open access publishing, where payment takes 
place for the service of publishing and unlimited dissemination rather 
than for access, even brings back competition, a free market condition 
if there ever was one. It fosters a service-oriented publishing model 
which aims to achieve universal accessibility of published scientific 
research results, to the benefit of the scientific community itself as 
well as of anyone else in society who has an interest.  In contrast, 
the traditional subscription-based publishing model is based on the 
premise that the information itself should be a sale-able commodity 
(although it is acquired for free from the originators) and it holds 
back dissemination of results, keeping instead a monopoloid grip on 
science communication. This sales-model holds for published material 
from which the originator aims to derive direct financial benefits, 
such as textbooks and the like. It does not satisfy the prevailing 
need for maximum dissemination and visibility of primary research 
results. Perhaps AAP members could start to consider becoming service 
providers instead of 'copyright mongers' for the primary research they 
publish?

Jan Velterop