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

["David Prosser" <david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk>]

Of course, some people believe that already "Journals have 
devolved into information laundering operations for the 
pharmaceutical industry" and massive reprint and advertising 
budgets have meant that on occasion the marketing department 
wields greater control over content than the editor.  I don't 
think that this is a uniquely open access problem.

(The quote is from Richard Horton, Editor of the Lancet and is 
included in an article Medical Journals Are an Extension of the 
Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies by Richard Smith, ex- 
Editor of the BMJ:

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/
journal.pmed.0020138)

Best wishes

David C Prosser PhD
Director
SPARC Europe
E-mail:  david.prosser@bodley.ox.ac.uk
http://www.sparceurope.org

-----Original Message-----
[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