Open Access News

To make money, some open-access journals rely mainly on advertising. But others require study authors [PS: or their funders or employers] to pay printing fees. This is very different from the traditional approach of journals such as the New England Journal of Medicine or Science, which charge subscription fees. In some cases, especially among obscure journals with small audiences, subscription costs can run as high as $4,000 or $5,000 a year [PS: or over $20,000/year]. "Most research is done for the benefit of the public, yet the public cannot access it," said Dr. Gavin Yamey, senior editor of Public Library of Science Medicine, a leading open-access journal that charges study authors $1,500 to run their studies. Earlier this year, there were an estimated 1,525 open-access journals in the world, making up perhaps 5 percent to 10 percent of the total. The ones that charge authors have been controversial because critics fear they'll support shoddy research to make money. [PS response.] "In our capitalist society, one of our basic tenets is who pays the fiddler calls the tune," Dr. Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine, said at a meeting of health journalists earlier this year. But Yamey said editors at his journal don't know whether the authors paid for placement or not (some can get waivers if they can't pay.) And Yamey, along with other open-access editors, reverses the conflict-of-interest accusation, pointing out that many traditional journals can easily be corrupted by advertisers such as pharmaceutical companies.

But what about the viability of open-access journals? Can they make it financially by providing content for free, regardless of whether they accept advertising or charge study authors? A new study suggests that staying alive financially will be a challenge. Researchers studied survey results from 495 open-access journals and found little evidence that many editors have found a way to stay afloat. In fact, 40 percent of the surveyed journals are failing to break even. "Many of them say they have no business plan," said Mark Frankel, co-director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Project on Science and Intellectual Property in the Public Interest, which helped fund the study. "They're committed to the social good, they want to get the (research) literature out, but they haven't thought about where they want to be financially." The good news? The growth of open-access journals has convinced traditional journals to allow more people to view their content for free. "The principle of open access is a good one," Frankel said. "It's difficult to disagree with."