![]() pays their management staff the 3-7 fold income of one of their professor-authors.Or, phrased differently, the current business model of NEJM entails the tax-payer paying more than US$300k for each research article in NEJM, which, at the same time: This would amount to an article processing charge (APC) for NEJM of around US$314,000. US$103,145,834 for the 328 research-type articles NEJM publishes annually. It is reasonable to assume that only citable items contain valuable scientific or medical research for which the public would have to pay to have them published in an Open Access scenario, while the other articles are opinion or news articles, either commissioned or written by in-house staff.įollowing the reasoning put forth by publishers such as SpringerNature, that Open Access publication charges should provide publishers with the same publication revenue as the current subscriptions, in 2016 the public would have had to spend approx. This is common practice and each journal negotiates what gets counted with Clarivate Analytics, the company that publishes the IF. Of course, they have published many more articles that can in principle be cited (1,304 of those, to be exact), but while all their citations are counted in the numerator of the impact factor (IF) calculation, these 1,304 “missing” articles are not counted in the denominator. Other publishers confirm these numbers:Īccording to Web Of Science, the NEJM (2016 Impact Factor: 72.406) has published 328 citable items in 2016. These costs are fairly similar across publishers, see, e.g., this overview. To make a peer-reviewed manuscript public, total costs of several hundred US$/€ accrue. In contrast to this blog post, publishing of research articles costs serious money. These numbers have to be put into perspective within the wider publishing ecosystem. ![]() Executive director, global sales: 368,254.Former executive vice president: 383,007.Vice president/General counsel: 417,405.In their public 2016 tax return (does using their numbers here make me a research parasite, too?), the NEJM lists the following items, all p.a. Now there are eponymous awards.įinally and perhaps equally likely (the reasons are, of course, not mutually exclusive) it could simply be about money. This interpretation would be supported by their 2016 editorial, in which they branded every scientist, who used scientific data that they had not collected themselves for their research as “ research parasites“. For one, the NEJM is leading the medical publishing industry in retractions: sourceįrom this perspective, it would make sense to not endanger the public with highly unreliable medical information until it has been properly vetted.It could also be that the journal thinks that science (or medicine in this case) either goes their way or the highway. This lack of valuation could be due to several reasons. Apparently, this journal does not seem to value access to medical information very highly. The New England journal of Medicine has come out strongly against Open Access.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |