BMJ  2005;330:904 (16 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7496.904

Letter

Access controls on bmj.com

Restore true open access to bmj.com

Editor—I joined the BMA when it ran a principled campaign in opposition to Margaret Thatcher's proposals for "reforming" the NHS. There have been other occasions when I have felt proud to be a member—for example, when a BMA spokesman took a principled stand recently about the scandalous acquiescence in NHS recruitment of staff trained at the expense of some very poor countries.

In contrast, I feel ashamed of the BMA's decision to restrict access to bmj.com,^{1 2} and I am one of several people who have tried (so far unsuccessfully) to prompt debate about this decision at the annual representative meeting. Making bmj.com available to the world without charge reflected creditably on an association of well paid professionals. At a time when the reputation of the medical profession is under attack from a variety of quarters, this generous spirited gift to the public could have been highlighted by the BMA. Instead, it decided that it would not continue to subsidise open access.

I regard the creation of a fully open access bmj.com as the most important single advance in medical publishing during my professional lifetime. Not only did it bring research, educational material, news, and views to a very wide readership at no cost to readers, it developed a unique forum for lively debate, engaging a wide variety of individuals and constituencies.

The bmj.com of 2005 is not what bmj.com used to be, and I am already accessing it less than I used to now that the site demands passwords from me. Members of the BMA should be given the opportunity to debate at this year's annual representative meeting the decision to withdraw support for fully open access to bmj.com. I believe that decision has further tarnished a professional image that had actually been enhanced by the creation of the pre-2005 bmj.com.

James Lind Library Summertown Pavilion, Oxford OX2 7LG ichalmers{at}jameslindlibrary.org

---

Competing interests: None declared.

References

1. Access controls on bmj.com from 7 January. bmj.com 2004. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/329/7478/DC1 (accessed 7 Apr 2005).
2. Godlee F. Open access, and proud of it [Editor's choice]. BMJ 2005; 330. (2 April.)

Related Articles

Access controls on bmj.com: Where's the evidence for restricting access?

Frank W Arnold
BMJ 2005 330: 1211. [Extract] [Full Text]

Access controls on bmj.com: Dual models are possible

Gunther Eysenbach
BMJ 2005 330: 1211. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Arnold, F. W (2005). Access controls on bmj.com: Where's the evidence for restricting access?. BMJ 330: 1211-1211 [Full text]  
• Eysenbach, G. (2005). Access controls on bmj.com: Dual models are possible. BMJ 330: 1211-1211 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A balanced fee

Joseph More
bmj.com, 15 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Restricting access to eBMJ: Where's the Evidence?

Frank W Arnold
bmj.com, 15 Apr 2005 [Full text]

BMJ.com Free please

Reuben Baker
bmj.com, 15 Apr 2005 [Full text]

free email of article should be allowed

john s ashcroft
bmj.com, 17 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Transparency of facts in communications

DAVID BARNES
bmj.com, 17 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Access controls: BMJ vs. CMAJ et al.

Adam L Scheffler MA LSW
bmj.com, 18 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Dual models are possible

Gunther Eysenbach
bmj.com, 19 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Re: Dual models are possible

David Vaile
bmj.com, 20 Apr 2005 [Full text]

oh, the irony!

Alice M Walsh
bmj.com, 26 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Re: oh, the irony!

Theo Fenton
bmj.com, 26 Apr 2005 [Full text]

Re: Restricting access to eBMJ: Where's the Evidence?

Claudio Blengini
bmj.com, 2 May 2005 [Full text]

Iain Chalmers is right

James A Willis
bmj.com, 11 May 2005 [Full text]

Re: Re: oh, the irony!

Christopher Anton
bmj.com, 12 May 2005 [Full text]

Irony squared

Mark Struthers
bmj.com, 14 May 2005 [Full text]

Re: Irony squared

Tony Delamothe
bmj.com, 14 May 2005 [Full text]

Re: Re: Irony squared

Christopher Anton
bmj.com, 18 May 2005 [Full text]