PAS: I want to thank Prof Harnad for his insightful comments on my paper, Medical journals are dead. Long live medical journals, published in the Feb 22, 2000 issue of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. The original paper is available on the CMAJ's website at http://www.cma.ca/cmaj/index.htm My goal was to offer one vision of the future. I set the piece in the future to give me some leeway to challenge some traditional assumptions. I have responded to Prof. Harnad's comments below.
> [pas] Some prestigious journals failed to make innovations in response > [pas] to PubMed Central. They vigorously defended their ownership of > [pas] articles by continuing to insist that authors assign copyright to > [pas] them. Intent on protecting their subscriber-based advertising > [pas] revenues, they continued to restrict access to their Web sites to > [pas] paying subscribers. However, realizing that these policies > [pas] limited the dissemination of their findings, authors no longer > [pas] sent their best work to these journals. Subscriptions fell, > [pas] advertisers defected, and some of the leading journals ran into > [pas] financial trouble. > [sh] This doesn't quite make sense: If revenues based on advertising rather > [sh] than subscriptions, why would access be restricted? PAS: My understanding is that the subscription base of a journal is the key factor of interest to advertisers in medical journals. Advertisers have not yet embraced banner ads on websites to the same degree. Access would be restircted to sustain the subscriber base to the paper journal in an effort to maintain advertising revenues. > [sh] And it is unrealistic to imagine that authors will choose their > [sh] journal by its web policy (or price) rather than its prestige > [sh] quality and impact factor. PAS: I understand the allure of brand name of the journal, but I dont think the scenario is so unrealistic. Researchers want to communicate with each other. It sometimes takes many months for some high profile medical journals to review articles, and the articles may then ultimately be rejected. Submission to more than one journal may be required before an article is available to peers. Many journals will not accept articles that have been posted as eprints. So, faced with the choice of a low probability of publication in a prestigious journal and a long wait (often involving submission to more than one prestigious journal) vs. immediate "publication" as an eprint, authors with good work they want to disseminate may choose the latter path especially if they have already jumped through the hoops of academic promotion. > [sh] Much more sensible for authors to stick to their preferred established > [sh] journals and simply self-archive their papers in the Open Archives. PAS: Journals ask authors to sign over copyright. I dont know whether they would systematically agree to web publication of publsiehd articles in a large proportion of their authors began to request self-archiving. > [pas] Competitive advantage came from the value added for subscribers > [pas] through customization and editorial commentary. Subscribers > [pas] gratefully paid $200 per year for a journal, since the customized > [pas] email commentaries saved them the time of sifting through > [pas] information and helped them to apply new findings in their own > [pas] practice. > > [sh] I doubt it; all this can be had for free, and peer review is the quality > [sh] controller that guides the usage; commentary is just a supplement. > > [sh] (When it comes to peer commentary, I know whereof I speak!) PAS: You put a lot of faith in peer review as a quality control mechanism. Based on my reading of the recent BMJ book, I think it is reasonable to concludethat the benefits of peer review are not completely proven and the risks, in terms of suppression of innovation, not adequately examined. PAS: These services are not available now. I am unaware of a customized education service in medicine based on individual subscriber characteristics or desires (the "Dell Computer approach" to medical publishing). As for the availability of commentary, I am unaware of any source of commentary in medical publishing akin to real commentary journals in other fields (the "Economist approach" to medical publishing). > [pas] Readers were well served by these changes. Research information > [pas] was now available on the Internet upon completion of a study (on > [pas] an e-print server), following journal review (on the journal's > [pas] Web site) and in an historical archive (on PubMed Central). > [pas] Readers appreciated the customization of content and the > [pas] informative commentaries provided by journals. > > [sh] It's much simpler than that: > > [sh] Publishers will downsize to becoming only Quality Control/Certification > [sh] (QC/C) service providers. Open archiving of the QC/C'd papers will take > [sh] care of access and distribution for free. QC/C will be paid for by the > [sh] author-institution out of annual S/L/P > [sh] [Subscription/Site-License/Pay-Per-View) savings, and the literature > [sh] will be free for all (commentary and all). PAS: That is another vision of the future. Which one you hold depends in part on your faith in peer review. > [pas] University promotion and tenure committees were less enthusiastic > [pas] about these changes. In the good old days they could rely on the > [pas] "brand" of the journal in which an article was published to > [pas] establish its merit. But some of the best "brand name" journals > [pas] were running aground, and journal impact factors had converged. > [pas] Therefore, tenure committees had to actually read articles and > [pas] reflect on their worth. Of course, they were greatly aided in > [pas] this task by the journals' detailed commentaries. > > [sh] This is unfortunately just speculation (and, I think, wrong). Impact > [sh] factors will not converge on the free journals; they will stay with the > [sh] high-quality journals. But self-archiving will force the high quality > [sh] journals to downsize to QC/C and become free on the reader-end. PAS: Free and high quality "journals" may not be mutually exclusive. The Los Alamos physics archive is arguably both. The "journals" i envision are high quality and not free but have some additional key features --- commentary and customization. As for the issue of speculation, the reason i set my article in the future is so i wouold have the leeway to speculate and challenge some traditional views. > [pas] By initiating a revolution in medical and scientific > [pas] publishing, Dr. Varmus equalized access to medical knowledge > [pas] around the world. Building on PubMed Central, the Word Health > [pas] Organization launched its "Global Medical School" initiative, > [pas] in partnership with the Gates Foundation, which developed and > [pas] donated a "Global Doctor" Internet computer to every physician > [pas] and medical student in middle- and low-income countries. These > [pas] initiatives have improved the health of billions and brightened > [pas] prospects for global justice and peace. Dr. Singer is > [pas] supported by a Medical Research Council of Canada Scientist > [pas] Award. The views expressed in this article are the author's and > [pas] should not be attributed to his employers or supporting > [pas] institutions. > > [sh] Maybe, or maybe not! See: > [sh] http://www.nih.gov/welcome/director/ebiomed/com0509.htm#harn45 > [sh] http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december99/12harnad.html PAS: The possible direct linkage between innovations in medical publishing and global health is arguably a unique feature of the medical arena which ultimately may be the most important legacy of changes in scholarly communication in medicine. Peter A. Singer, MD, MPH, FRCPC Sun Life Chair in Bioethics and Director, University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics Professor of Medicine, University of Toronto Medical Research Council of Canada Scientist e-mail: [email protected] website: http://www.utoronto.ca/jcb fax: 416-978-1911 phone: 416-978-4756 mail: 88 College St., Toronto ON Canada M5G-1L4 The University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics is a partnership among University of Toronto; Baycrest Centre for Geriatric Care; Centre for Addiction and Mental Health; Centre for Clinical Ethics of Providence Centre, St. Joseph's Health Centre, and St. Michael's Hospital; The Hospital for Sick Children; Mount Sinai Hospital; Sunnybrook and Women's College Health Sciences Centre; Toronto Rehabilitation Institute; and University Health Network
