Concerned voices of dissent from the editors of BioMed Central journals are merely part of the process of creating a new publishing business model, publisher Matthew Cockerill has told IWR....Three areas of worry have been highlighted [by BMC editors]: increases in the article processing charge (APC); a new code of conduct; and increasing overlap between existing and new journals from the stable....
“That BioMed Central is publishing more journals is positive for open access,” Cockerill said of the charges. “We have a lot of evidence that where we are strongest as a publisher is where we have clusters of journals and there is some overlap.” He added that clusters enabled BioMed Central to create gateways to content rather than to cannibalise. He also said that the code of conduct was circulated for feedback and is constantly being added to in response to feedback. “We are working on a new model of publishing. There are many issues that need improving and we are working on them.”
Remaining upbeat, he said the company has seen no detrimental effect on submissions since the dissent entered the public arena through The Scientist journal in May. Cockerill said he welcomed the current debate (click here for Cockerill on viability of OA publishing). “We have a shared interest with OA and it’s important that BioMed Central creates a viable business model for OA.”
Posted by
Peter Suber at 6/09/2006 08:37:00 AM.
The open access movement:
Putting peer-reviewed scientific and scholarly literature
on the internet. Making it available free of charge and
free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.
Removing the barriers to serious research.
