Re: Author Publication Charge Debate

From: Suhail A. Rahman <sd2_at_GMX.NET>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2004 15:05:20 +0000

On Thu, 22 Jan 2004 12:20:25 -0500, Albert Henderson wrote:

> The author-pays open access ideal, which delivers
> nothing, has been fostered by too many non-
> researchers whose stated goal is the elimination of
> publishers and library costs.

The principles propounded for author charged open access sounded quite
promising initially and I was the first author to send a manuscript to, and
which was published (free) in, BMC Nuclear Medicine. However my support
for author charged open access has waned since then and now I strongly
believe that author charged open access should be discontinued. The reason
is quite simple. As authors, even from so called affluent countries, (I am
in Kuwait) research costs billed to authors cannot be borne as in many
countries, unlike in the West, there is no organized system of institutional
support for rersearch. Open Access will then be limited to either the "rich"
researchers, or those backed by an institutional system. For the majority of
clinicians, who do high quality research on their own, the added publication
costs of open access will be a major stumbling block to research output.

I would suggest a system like that of the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology
& Metabolism as the way to go. All research after 1 year of publication
becomes open access. That within 1 year is not open access. There are no
author fees. This should be the face of open access, a way out for both
authors and researchers. Myself and my colleagues have decided never to send
a manuscript to author charged open access again (unless of course in the
rare instance of someone turning up to pay for it).

I look forward to the responses generated by this message
Received on Fri Feb 06 2004 - 15:05:20 GMT