> Open
Access
> Peer
Review
> Research
Ethics
open
access
Open
Access publishing and the author-pays
business model
Since the introduction of the world
wide web, peer-reviewed journal
publishers have been wrestling with
the dilemma of how to survive in
a market place that facilitates
and encourages the free exchange
of electronic content. This web-based
movement is in direct opposition
to the traditional subscriptions-based
business model of scientific publishing
that relies heavily on print-based
pricing and distribution. One emerging
alternative to the traditional journal
business model is Open Access publishing
where lawful free access to journal
content is provided online with
production funded through means
other than subscription charges.
Various models for funding open
access have been proposed, but one
in particular has generated considerable
interest and has become the business
model for several new open access
journals. The 'author-pays' model
requires that authors, or their
granting agencies or institutions,
pay a contribution to the cost of
publishing on submission and / or
acceptance of their paper.
BMJ Research
has an ongoing research programme
into the viability of the author-pays
business model for BMJ Journals.
The research comprises several stages:
Stage
1: Preliminary
Semi-structured interviews with
authors to determine their familiarity
with and range of attitudes towards
open access and author-pays publishing.
Current status:
Stage 1 completed. Paper published
in BMJ January 2005.
[Full
Text PDF]
Stage
2: Development
A survey of authors to quantify
their knowledge and perception of
open access publishing and author-pays
business models. A second survey
to determine what proportion of
research published in BMJ Journals
is externally funded and whether
authors have access to funding at
the time of paper acceptance. Research
with stakeholders (authors, librarians,
institutions, funding bodies) to
determine attitudes towards author-charging
models and whether and how they
would support the open access author-pays
movement.
Current status:
Three papers in preparation.
Schroter S,
Tite L, Kassem A. Authors’
access to financial support at the
time of paper acceptance: A survey
of biomedical journals. [abstract].
Proceedings of the 5th international
congress on peer review and biomedical
publication. Chicago, September
2005.
Tite L, Schroter
S. Open access publishing and author-pays
business models: A survey of authors’
knowledge and perceptions. JRSM
2006; 99: 141-148. [Abstract]
Tite L, Schroter
S. Librarians’ awareness of
and attitudes towards open-access
publishing and author-pays models.
(In prep)
Stage
3: Experimentation with author-pays
business model on selected BMJ Journals
The Journal of Medical Genetics
(JMG) has recently received a substantial
grant from JISC, the Joint Information
Systems Committee of the UK, in
support of its open access trial.
This funding will support open access
publication of up to 20 articles
from UK institutions. Accepted papers
from UK institutions will be randomised
to open (unlocked) or closed access;
open access papers will carry the
JMG Unlocked logo (above) and will
be free to view online for all users.
Authors from countries other than
the UK will have the option of paying
a publication fee (£1,200)
to unlock their article. All other
articles will remain behind access
controls for 12 months, as is current
JMG policy. If the JMG unlocked
trial is successful, we anticipate
a gradual transition in which author
publication fees allow subscription
rates to be reduced as more articles
are unlocked and the journal becomes
increasingly open access.
Current status:
JMG experiment due to
be completed 2007. [Editorial]
Back
to top >
peer
review
Comparison
of author and editor suggested reviewers
in terms of review quality and recommendation
for publication
Many journals give authors the opportunity
to suggest referees to review their
paper. We conducted a study comparing
author- and editor-suggested reviewers
of ten biomedical journals in a
range of specialties to investigate
differences in review quality and
recommendation for publication.
Current status:
Study completed - paper in press.
Schroter S,
Tite L, Hutchings A, Black N. Comparison
of author and editor suggested reviewers
in terms of review quality and recommendation
for publication. JAMA 2006; 295:
3. [Conference
proceedings] [Abstract]
Why do peer reviewers decline to
review?
Peer reviewers are usually unpaid
and their efforts not formally acknowledged.
Editors of some journals experience
difficulty finding appropriate reviewers
who are able to complete timely
reviews, resulting in publication
delay. We conducted a survey of
reviewers from 5 BMJ Journals to
determine why reviewers decline
to review and their opinions of
various incentives.
Current status:
Study completed - paper in preparation.
Tite
L, Schroter S. Why do
peer reviewers decline
to review? A survey. [abstract].
Proceedings of the 5th
international congress
on peer review and biomedical
publication. Chicago,
September 2005. [Conference
proceedings]. Paper
in press: Journal
of Epidemiology and Community
Health
Comparison of submitted and published
reports of randomised trials
Published articles describing RCTs
have reported widespread deficiencies
in both study methodology and reporting.
Important discrepancies have been
found between trial protocols and
details given in subsequently published
journal articles. It is unknown
whether the publication process
increases or decreases such deficiencies
and discrepancies. The objective
of this study is to characterise
differences between reports of randomised
controlled trials as originally
submitted to the BMJ and as published.
Current status:
In progress. Two abstracts presented
at the Fifth International Congress
on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication,
Chicago, USA, September 2005.
Altman DG, Ioannidis
J, Moher D, Mollison J, Schriger
D, Schroter S. Comparison of submitted
and published reports of randomised
trials. (In prep). Abstract presented
at the Fifth International Congress
on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication,
Chicago, USA, September 2005. [Conference
proceedings]
Schriger DL,
Altman DG, Schroter S. From Submission
to Publication: A study of the Tables
and Figures in a cohort of RCTs
submitted to the BMJ. (In prep).
Abstract presented at the Fifth
International Congress on Peer Review
and Biomedical Publication, Chicago,
USA, September 2005. [Conference
proceedings].
Paper in press:
Annals of Emergency Medicine.
Enhancing collaboration
through peer review – moving
the agenda along in editorial peer
review: a pilot study
The effects of editorial peer review
are uncertain and may never be fully
evaluated. Presumably editorial
peer review has some positive effects
compared to no peer review, but
in its current configuration editorial
peer review is a complex intervention
which has hardly evolved in the
last century. A recent exploratory
review failed to find any evidence
of alternative peer review models
in disciplines such as chemistry,
physics, archaeology, law and maths
but identified two variants within
biomedical sciences. One variant
(the model adopted by the Cochrane
Collaboration) is founded on collaboration
to improve our knowledge. Once the
title and basic idea for a review
is accepted editors, authors and
reviewers collaborate to produce
the best possible study along agreed
methodological lines. We plan to
conduct a pilot study at BMJ to
see if this approach can work in
practice for our research papers
over a fixed period of time. If
the approach appears feasible we
will then submit a grant application
to a funding agent for a much larger
experiment.
Current status:
Designing pilot study. Study team:
Tom Jefferson, Sara Schroter, Fiona
Godlee
Back
to top >
research
ethics
Reporting
of ethical committee approval and
patient consent by study design
in five general medical journals
Authors are required to describe
in their manuscripts ethical approval
from an appropriate committee and
how consent was obtained from subjects
when research involves human subjects.
Previous studies have focused on
concordance with these regulations
within a single speciality or for
clinical trials. We assessed reporting
of these protections for several
study designs published in Annals
of Internal Medicine, BMJ, JAMA,
Lancet and New England Journal of
Medicine.
Current status:
Study completed - paper in preparation.
Schroter
S, Plowman R, Hutchings
A, Gonzalez A. Reporting
of Ethical Committee Approval
and Patient Consent by
Study Design in 5 General
Medical Journals. Paper
in Press: Journal
of Medical Ethics. [Abstract].
Back
to top > |
