BMJ  2005;330:1211 (21 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7501.1211

Letter

Access controls on bmj.com

Where's the evidence for restricting access?

EDITOR—Proponents of access controls for the electronic version of the BMJ based this policy on several grounds: that it was required for economic reasons (affordability); it would produce revenue (profitability); and it would not have serious adverse consequences for doctors or patients (harmlessness).

Each of these statements is contentious. Now that restrictive practices have been put in place, they can be and should be subjected to a fair test. This is worth doing because the data may help to inform wider debates about open access to scientific and professional journals. In effect, the BMJ is conducting a social experiment, and we would be foolish not to examine the results.

Affordability—Some, arguably too little, of the journal's output is already funded from the public purse. That has already been paid for. The BMA has just returned £5m to its corporate kitty; this does not indicate that we cannot afford to maintain open access. Furthermore, restricting access incurs an actual expenditure cost: the labour of skilled information technologists to set up the new "business rules" on the servers for the website.

Profitability—One hopes and assumes that the restrictive policy was preceded by a business case whose revenue projections are available for scrutiny. Motions have been submitted to the BMA annual general meeting to restore open access.¹ Even if these are passed and speedily acted on, a reasonable amount of hard economic data should have accrued before this time, permitting comparison of observed and expected revenue.

Harmlessness—It is more difficult to quantify specific harms. However, little doubt exists that some patients benefit from being able to inform themselves of the best medical evidence. The BMJ is one of the most valuable resources in such a search. The consequences for the ability of the BMA to get important messages across to the wider public can also be explored. Effects on access restrictions outside the United Kingdom are important. Fifty three postings have been received so far, almost all negative, and overwhelmingly from developing countries that have not been permitted open access.²

The fact that we may get uncomfortable answers does not justify not looking.

Reading RG6 1QB arnold_frank{at}hotmail.com

---

Competing interests: FWA has cervical spondylosis and trouble remembering passwords; he is biased against access controls. As a BMA member, he has free access.

References

1. Chalmers I. Access controls on bmj.com: restore true open access to bmj.com. BMJ 2005;330:904. (16 April.)[Free Full Text]
2. Electronic responses.Access controls on bmj.com from 7 January. bmj.com 2005. http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/eletters/329/7478/DC1 (accessed 15 Apr 2005).

Related Article

Access controls on bmj.com: Restore true open access to bmj.com

Iain Chalmers
BMJ 2005 330: 904. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Access controls + condoms

John G. Hunt
bmj.com, 21 May 2005 [Full text]

the joke is complete...

Ms. Shefaly Yogendra
bmj.com, 22 May 2005 [Full text]

Buy shares now, instead of reading?

Phillip J Mondy
bmj.com, 26 May 2005 [Full text]