Pubmed doesn't add much

D Forsdyke forsdyke1 at home.com
Thu Nov 25 18:02:08 EST 1999


From: Donald Forsdyke. Discussion Leader. Bionet.journals.note

The following communication from NIH staff to my university, indicates
the strong pressures on NIH not to rock the publishing boat too much.
Quite a dramatic change from its original position:

"You are correct: At this point researchers cannot contribute directly 
>to PubMed Central. The NIH will not make decisions about content; all 
>those decisions are to be made by journals or organizations willing 
>to undertake peer review and redaction. There may be new journals 
>that will use PubMed Central as their primary publishing venue, and 
>they may be interested in your faculty member's work, or the faculty 
>member may choose to set up such an organization to start a new 
>journal. (In the latter case, he or she may wish to wait until the 
>Advisory Board, which we will put together shortly, sets guidelines 
>for such new journals.)
>
>As for the costs, they are of two kinds: the infrastructure, which 
>NIH is covering, and the preparation costs. Those preparation costs 
>can be covered by societies or journals as part of their publication 
>process, or they may be passed on to authors. The NIH will allow 
>researchers to use grant funds to cover preparation, review, and 
>redaction costs; other funding agencies are considering doing the 
>same. As you know, much of the cost of document preparation is in the 
>review process, and most of that is absorbed by researchers' 
>institutions, as journals typically do not pay peer reviewers. Our 
>discussions with societies and journals during our comment phase 
>persuaded us that there are viable economic models in the PubMed 
>Central environment.
>
>Our intent is to provide PubMed Central without charge to researchers 
>and members of the public around the world.
>
>       --Judith Turner
>




More information about the Jrnlnote mailing list