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

["Sally Morris \(ALPSP\)" <sally.morris@alpsp.org>]

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
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: "Phil Davis" <pmd8@cornell.edu>
To: <liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Friday, May 12, 2006 1:27 AM
Subject: RE: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial Independence?

> The authoritative stamp of editorial approval and the 
> reluctance to publish low-quality articles only exists for 
> prestigious journals.  All academic fields contain second and 
> third-tier journals, most of which are starving for 
> manuscripts.  Just look for journals that regularly combine 
> issues, merge titles, fill issues with conference abstracts, 
> feschrifts, or in the case of one British publisher, 
> previously-published articles. Ask the editorial board members 
> of these journals what their role is and they will tell you it 
> is to solicit manuscripts.  These journals don't have impact 
> factors, and probably don't care too much. They exist as 
> vehicles to publish articles that are rejected by prestigious 
> journals.
>
> None of the above description has anything to do with Open 
> Access, and as Peter Banks and others have illustrated, many of 
> the OA journals are starving for manuscripts as well.
>
> The argument that there is a strong disincentive for accepting 
> articles of low quality does not exist for most journals, 
> whether they are Open Access or not.  However, the danger of 
> implementing a method of rewarding editors for simply the 
> number of paying authors they attract (plus a system that 
> punishes editors for accepting manuscripts from authors that 
> cannot afford to pay), is to invite a system of 'vanity 
> publishing' in the truest sense of the term.  This again has 
> nothing to do with Open Access.  My principle concern remains 
> that the BMC business model fails to meet the standards of the 
> ethical organizations to which it belongs, including:
>
> The Committee on Publishing Ethics 
> http://www.publicationethics.org.uk/
>
> The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
> http://www.icmje.org/
>
> World Association of Medical Editors http://www.wame.org/
>
> --Phil Davis
> ___________________________
>
> Matt Cockerill wrote: "The concerns that you express ignore the core
> function of journals, which is to convey an authoritative stamp of
> editorial approval on research."
>
> Neither BioMed Central's editors, nor BioMed Central, nor Public
> Library of Science, nor any other open access journal publisher,
> would advance their own interests by accepting articles regardless of
> quality, since journals which cannot convey a meaningful stamp of
> editorial approval will not attract submissions.
>
> To take just one example, the BioMed Central journal which publishes the
> *most* articles, 'BMC Bioinformatics', also has the highest impact factor
> of any BioMed Central journal. More generally, the number of publications
> in each of our journals is strongly positively correlated with impact
> factor.  So the idea that somehow quality and quantity tug in opposite
> directions is misguided. Having a reputation for quality attracts more
> papers.
>
> Matt
>
> > 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