Print
Send to friend
RSS feedsConcerned voices of dissent from the editors of BioMed Central journals are merely part of the process of creating a new publishing business model, publisher Matthew Cockerill has told IWR.
The open access (OA) publisher has been rocked by a series of complaints by editors, including a story in The Scientist, a journal published by BioMed Central’s parent company.
BioMed Central editors have expressed concern about management methods of the London-based publisher. Three areas of worry have been highlighted: increases in the article processing charge (APC); a new code of conduct; and increasing overlap between existing and new journals from the stable.
Editors complained (read original story in The Scientist article here) that the new code of conduct was forced onto them without prior consultation. “That BioMed Central is publishing more journals is positive for open access,” Cockerill said of the charges.
“We have a lot of evidence that where we are strongest as a publisher is where we have clusters of journals and there is some overlap.” He added that clusters enabled BioMed Central (click here for news on BioMed Central publishers ) to create gateways to content rather than to cannibalise. He also said that the code of conduct was circulated for feedback and is constantly being added to in response to feedback.
“We are working on a new model of publishing. There are many issues that need improving and we are working on them.”
Remaining upbeat, he said the company has seen no detrimental effect on submissions since the dissent entered the public arena through The Scientist journal in May. Cockerill said he welcomed the current debate (click here for Cockerill on viability of OA publishing ). “We have a shared interest with OA and it’s important that BioMed Central creates a viable business model for OA.”
All Science
del.icio.us
Digg this
reddit!
