[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BMC in LJ Academic NewsWire
Interesting that BMC editors are not paid; as far as I am aware,
most traditional publishers (both commercial and nonprofit) do
pay their journaleditors. I'm not sure whether unpaid editors
are the norm in OA journals - can anyone enlighten me?
Sally Morris, Chief Executive
Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers
South House, The Street, Clapham, Worthing, West Sussex BN13 3UU, UK
Email: sally.morris@alpsp.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ann Okerson" <ann.okerson@yale.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 05, 2006 11:35 PM
Subject: BMC in LJ Academic NewsWire
Excerpted from LJN, thursday, 4 May:
Growing Pain: Editors Voice Complaints About Open Access Pioneer BioMed
Central
Is trouble brewing at open access pioneer BioMed Central (BMC)?
This week the BMC-owned magazine The Scientist published a
lengthy article suggesting that a number of editors at some of
BMC's 93 independent journals are unhappy with the publisher's
efforts, and several were said to be considering leaving the
company altogether. BMC, a for-profit open access publisher
founded in 2000, has been touted as an alternative to the
commercial subscription model, which is plagued by rampant
inflation. Now, as the company makes changes to its business,
it is beginning to hear some familiar complaints, including
over price inflation. According to The Scientist, BMC editors,
who are not paid, are upset with recent increases in BMC's
author processing charge (APC), and the granting of fewer APC
waivers for papers whose authors cannot afford to pay the full
APC. Also, last year the new BMC contract required editors to
transfer journal ownership over to BMC. BMC publisher Matthew
Cockerill defended the changes, including the swelling APC. In
January 2002, the APC was $500. Today it is 750 pounds, about
$1340. "Having published many thousands of articles since then,
we now have a much better idea of what we need to charge to
cover our costs and ensure financial sustainability," Cockerill
told the LJ Academic Newswire. Cockerill replaced founding
publisher Jan Velterop last year, after Velterop left BMC to
pursue other open access-related projects. Velterop later
joined Springer.
Cockerill noted that the new APC was still "well within the
range regarded as reasonable by funders, and compares very
favorably with the charges of other publishers offering open
access." APC costs aside, editors' other major complaint,
according The Scientist, appears to be with BMC management,
described as "uncompromising" on a range of issues facing the
company. Kuan-Teh Jeang, editor-in-chief of the BMC journal
Retrovirology, echoed most editors in supporting open access,
but questioned BMC's execution. "We all feel open access is
where we want to donate our time, energy, and reputations,"
Jeang told The Scientist. "What we want from BMC is a sense
that they value us as equal team members." Richard Feinman,
co-editor-in-chief of Nutrition and Metabolism, was more blunt
in his assessment, telling The Scientist that "open access is
going to move forward and if the BMC management can meet this
challenge, fine, if not, they should be replaced." Cockerill
seemed unfazed by the criticism saying he valued the input of
editors. "As with every challenging endeavor, there will
occasionally be problems along the way," he told the LJ
Academic Newswire. "The editors of new open access journals
have taken on an important and challenging task. We are working
hard with them, to make their journals a success." As for BMC's
success? Cockerill said the company was "doing well." Although
BMC is still not yet profitable, he said, "Support from authors
for BioMed Central has never been stronger. Submissions are at
record levels. Wider support for open access, too, continues to
grow each day."
Copyright 2006, Library Journal