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

[Richard Feinman <RFeinman@downstate.edu>]

Phil,

Correction: BMC wants to reward their editors with 20% of the 
author processing charge and has done so with those who have 
signed a contract since Novermber 2005.  I and many other 
independent editors do not receive this fee and do not want it -- 
it is, in fact, one of the major issues in disagreement with BMC 
management.  Because there are other important issues involved, 
it had not occurred to us that it had anything to do with 
editorial independence but now that it is raised, I personally 
will be glad to make the point that it is unacceptable because of 
these issues. So we are basically in agreement and if there is an 
objection we have it is the implication that the journal fee was 
the editors' idea rather than BMC's as well as the tone that 
implies you are the last honest man alive. RF

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Phil Davis <pmd8@cornell.edu>
Sent by: owner-liblicense-l@lists.yale.edu
05/15/06 08:23 PM
Re: Does BMC's business model conflict with Editorial Independence?

Before this conversation completely goes astray, let me reframe 
my argument:

1) It is not about the integrity of BMC editors.
2) It is not about the merits of Open Access to society.
3) It is not about whether ethical breaches have been perpetrated by
     other publishers.
4) This argument is about whether BMC's business model puts editorial
     independence at risk.

Now, let us review the facts, and if I get any wrong, please
correct me:

1) BMC rewards their editors with 20% of the author processing charge.
2) BMC requires editors to fund manuscripts that are accepted from
     those who cannot pay.
3) Biomedical ethics organizations (COPE, WAME, ICMJE) have
     guidelines that explicitly require the editorial decision-making to
     be separated by the commercial interests of the journal, and,
     BMC is a member of the first two organizations.

Discussion:

Again, this is not to accuse BMC editors of being unscrupulous.
I am not privy to their decision-making, and what they do with
the commission they receive from BMC for every paying author they
can attract.  Whether they simply pocket this money or use it to
sponsor poor authors is up to them.  In addition, most BMC
journals publish very few articles per month.  Richard's journal
(Nutrition and Metabolism) averages about 3 published
articles/month, so I can't imagine that his editorial expenses
are high.  I also cannot imagine that BMC journals, many of which
publish ten or fewer articles per year, have the same kind of
rejection rates of other prestigious journals they like to
compare themselves with.

For most of my professional life, I have been a selector of
science journals.  If I told you that, in lieu of a salary, I
received 20% of the subscription price for each journal I keep in
my collection, you would be aghast.  If I told you that I had to
pay for publications from developing countries out of my own
commission, you would be outraged.  If I told you that Elsevier
sent me a gift (a new Subaru Legacy Outback wagon, 2.5L, Atlantic
blue pearl, with heated leather seats), for giving them more
business last year, you would accuse me of abdicating my
profession duties for personal financial advancement.  I would
recoil in shock that anyone would ever question my loyalty and
integrity!

Yet unfortunately, I paid a meager salary and derive no bonuses
from my decision-making.  I dream of replacing our old 1996
Subaru hatchback, but this has no bearing on how I decide where
my library spends its money.  I am insulated from the possible
influences of a tip-economy, and hope that my faculty believe
that I am a fair and honest manager of our institution's funds.

Editors are the Gatekeepers of Science.  If we want these
individuals to be unbiased arbitrators of the scientific record,
we need to stop rewarding them as commission salesmen.

--Phil Davis