It’s been disappointing, nearly a decade later, despite Tracz’s and Lipman’s energetic efforts, that NIH has been unable to stipulate full open access for all publications indexed in PubMed/Medline. The watered-down version of the plan is opt-in, though fortunately scientists have put tremendous pressure on publishers over the years so that most journals have a form of OA (e.g., OA 6 months after publication – not  much help to e-patients).

The business model promoted by Tracz and that has been profitable for his BioMedCentral journals (founded in 2000, now with 180+ OA titles) involves the research institution or the funding source (scientists include the cost in their grant proposal budget) paying for the article.  Traditionally, most journals charge a page fee as well as fees for color illustrations, at rates close to the $500 charged by BMC journals for submission (the rate has increased now, but remains much lower than the amount charged by PloS).

Here’s a statement from major UK funder Wellcome Trust:

Expects authors of research papers to maximise the opportunities to make their results available for free and, where possible, to retain their copyright.

Will provide Grant Holders with additional funding to cover the costs of page processing charges levied by publishers who support the open access model.

Jan Velterop, former director and publisher of BioMedCentral and lead crusader for Open Access, has many powerpoint presentations on OA that can be googled and downloaded.  Here’s  an early presentation that simply and powerfully spells out the costs and benefits.

As testimony to the business model, and indication that the big players are coming ‘round, BioMedCentral was recently purchased by journal publishing giant Springer. 

Derk Haank, CEO of Springer Science+Business Media said:

This acquisition reinforces the fact that we see open access publishing as a sustainable part of STM publishing, and not an ideological crusade.  We have gained considerable positive experience since starting Springer Open Choice in 2004, and BioMed Central’s activities are complementary to what we are doing.

BioMed Central’s flagship journals include Journal of Biology, BMC Biology, BMC Medicine, Malaria Journal, BMC Bioinformatics and Genome Biology.  BioMed Central has revenues of approximately EUR 15 million per year.  The company is based in London, with a second office in Liverpool, and has approximately 150 employees.

So how much longer will we have to wait for mainstream publishers to jump on board with OA?  The results are in; there should no longer be cries for a sustainable business model.

Thank you, Susannah, for that introduction.

Actually, I fell behind in providing lists for the Coalition Web site at http://www.healthcommunication.net/ where they were being archived.

The lists have always been a PERSONAL (not NLM) project. I still do them so I can try to keep track of health communication-related sites. But I quit sharing them because I didn’t have time to check all the sites and edit if needed.

Let me take this opportunity to say that e-patients.net welcomes posts from new contributors: if you have something to say that won’t fit in a comment, please contact me or anyone else on the “About” page.

Also, just a quick introduction and welcome to Marcia Zorn, a reference librarian at the National Library of Medicine who for many years has curated an ongoing index of health communication websites and resources, all of which are archived at http://www.healthcommunication.net/ When I could keep up with them, her emails were a beacon in my inbox!

And: are you saying that the intent of the NIH is to cover all the costs of operating a JOURNAL, such that any income the journal receives is gravy? It’s hard for me to believe that, but I’ve been saying that a lot, this past year.

“Will NIH pay for publication costs?

Yes. The NIH will reimburse publication costs, including author fees, for grants and contracts on three conditions: (1) such costs incurred are actual, allowable, and reasonable to advance the objectives of the award; (2) costs are charged consistently regardless of the source of support; (3) all other applicable rules on allowability of costs are met.”

And then one last fact. When asked in his congressional testimony about the costs of publicly financed research, NIH director Elias Zerhouni spoke against the bill. Zerhouni explained that the NIH spent an average of $300,000 in taxpayer money for every paper produced, and that he sought to maximize the return on that investment for the public, and for scientists.

“This is not an issue of economic impact. This is not an issue of peer review,” he argued.

So, is it just a culinary issue, after all?

11:13 “You have no idea the number of excuses people come up with to hang onto their data and not give it to you – even though you’ve paid for it, as a taxpayer.” Ha!

Great post and great comments. As a scientist I’ve peer reviewed journal articles for free, and helped pay for them through author page charges and professional membership dues. As a writer, I’ve paid from my pocket for access, and also obtained them via contacting the author or getting a copy from a press office.

One of the biggest advocates of open access is former NIH director Harold Varmus – see his editorial in PLoS, an open access journal http://tinyurl.com/cf4ty2. This debate is far from over, but the good news is that we are in fact discussing public access. Knowledge is power. In the mean time, individuals have free access to many articles via PubMed Central http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/. For those with a medical or science library around, they are a pretty great place to hang out.