[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