Michael Jacobson (Hi Michael! - we all did get your message by the way...) suggests that BioMed Central is a commercial pharmaceutical/biotech subversive attempt to "get biased research 'published.'" As Stevan has pointed out so eloquently repeatedly, we must keep separate in our minds the service of peer review and the product of the "journal." If the community of scientists/clinicians/scholars trusts the peer review process and the editorial leadership, who is helping pay for the formatting and presentation of the work should not influence our trust of the results. How different will an online archival/journal resource that is supported by industry funding be from JAMA or the New England Journal of Medicine, which no doubt derive substantial portions of their revenue from pharmaceutical companies? And certainly we have seen examples of biased/illicit research that finds itself on the pages of even these two respected journals. Furthermore, we have seen in one year what happens to editorial leadership of such journals when trust -(in one case of the editor's trust of the sponsoring organization and the other the trust of the organization of the editor) - erodes.
At least in clinical medical journals and circles, we have grown accustomed (rightly or wrongly) to industry sponsorship of so much around us - our journals, our meetings, our visiting professorships! Until all the libraries and universities are able to shift their subscription costs to supporting new models, such as author payment for publication charges, having industry sponsorship of intermediate solutions may not be so bad. We are taught to be suspicious and keep our guard up. I believe that the processes introduced by evidence-based medicine can only help in this regard.... As far as BioMed Central competing with the expensive, rarely cited journals - I say bravo. If even a minority of these esoteric journals were eliminated, allowing free access via the net to the results that would have appeared in them, this can only benefit the community. Less "Tower of Babelism" with thousands of disconnected journals that cost too much to access and more organized, connected, freely available results in front of the eyeballs of the people that need it the most. (But don't make authors transfer copyright and therefore repeat all the evils of the print past...) I do think it might well take a generation to fully transfer trust from the top tier journals, and it is certainly "risky" to submit to an unproven entity. So let's give it a chance to prove itself - put together a top notch editorial board and peer reviewers, and get the buy-in from the NLM and NIH (as Michael points out). We might be surprised at how rapidly it takes off. To me, the reasons for allowing authors to self-archive is that the journals are not making the work available online without access barriers. If those barriers could be brought down, as the BMJ has done and perhaps BioMed Central/PubMed Central will do, then maybe we could rethink the primacy of self-archiving .... Apologies forthwith to the general scholarly audience for this somewhat focused "medical" diatribe... Barry _________________begin included message_________________
I posted a message on this topic to the list, which is available on the website but didn't show up in my email (I don't know if the sender doesn't get an email copy). I would like to re-emphasize my point to you, personally. BioMed Central is just the beginning of what will be a subversive attempt by the biotech and pharmaceutical industries to get biased research "published" online, in new, online-only journals. Precisely because online publications have not yet been adequately "rated", there is a free-for-all, with everybody trying to establish a brand-name. Nobody knows what is good, what is bad, what is sponsored and what is independent. This free-for-all is a paradise for "medical communication companies" in which to hawk their wares. I am amazed by the fact that the NIH, which really should be a model of independence, is partnering with commercial enterprises to distribute medical literature. The mere association with NIH / NLM / PubMed is enough to give any enterprise significant credibility. I remain very skeptical about the ultimate fate of self-archiving, but it seems to me that to allow biomedical publishing to shift towards sponsored, Internet-based commercial enterprises is even worse than the status quo. But this seems to be the way of the world right now... Michael Jacobson __________________end included message__________________
__________________________________________________ Barry P. Markovitz, MD Pediatric Anesthesiology/Critical Care St. Louis Children's Hospital, Washington University School of Medicine email: markov...@kids.wustl.edu WWW: http://PedsCCM.org voice: 314-454-6215 fax: 314-454-2296 ___________________________________________________