[Ip-health] WSJ letters to editor on open-access publishing

[Mike Palmedo]

The letters below are in response to an October 28 story, which is
online here:
http://online.wsj.com/article_print/0,,SB109890431840357445,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://online.wsj.com/opinion/letters?mod=2_0048

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR:

Should Access to Medical Research Be Free?

Bringing quality science to the public is a laudable goal, but the
government and scholarly publishers alike must be careful ("Journals
Resist Free Access to Medical Data," Oct. 28). The National Institutes
for Health proposal for free access to research articles should be
carefully studied for its potential effect on the quality and quantity
of research and the possibility of unintended consequences. For example,
the push could shutter many scholarly journals that operate on the edge
of profitability or at a loss, underwritten by organizations like mine
that believe in and invest in knowledge dissemination to advance science
and for the public good. A decrease in the number of dissemination
outlets available to researchers would decrease the exchange of science
information rather than increase it.

In addition, public access to journal articles will do little to help
the average consumer understand the latest scientific finding because
researchers write in a complex technical language. Federal energies
would be better spent creating public information products that the
public can easily understand and put to use.

Norman B. Anderson, Ph.D.
Chief Executive Officer
American Psychological Association
Washington
--------------------------------------

BioMed Central believes that open access to research is central to rapid
and efficient progress in science and that subscription-based access to
research is hindering rather than helping scientific communication.
Indeed, we have already published online more than 6,500 research
articles. While there's no doubt that traditional publishers do claim
that U.S. taxpayers will ultimately pay for the NIH plan, isn't it also
true that most of the current subscription income of the very same
publishers ultimately also comes from taxpayers, via the many university
and other publicly funded libraries?

Jan Velterop
Director and Publisher
BioMed Central Ltd.
London
--------------------------------------

As a result of voluntary actions by publishers of scientific journals,
more information is available to more people than ever before. Many
journals make their content free online, and others are investing
substantial resources to make archival issues available. Patients have
free access to abstracts and can request free copies of articles from
most of these publishers. Scholarly publishers oppose mandatory
government-imposed rules, they have pointed out major flaws in the NIH
proposal and they question a plan that would jeopardize their successful
efforts to increase access in favor of an untested proposal created by
people who have never successfully published a journal.

Paul W. Kincade
President
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Bethesda, Md.