Abstract: The primary goal of most dental publications is to link the results of new research with the clinicians who deliver patient care. The more efficient this transfer of information, the more quickly treatment will be altered, resulting in better outcomes for the patient. Recent advances in information and communication technologies mean research results can be disseminated with ever-increasing efficiency. But our expanding ability to share information and the increasing need of researchers to access information quickly is driving a major change in how journals operate.Currently, most journals, including the AJO-DO, require readers to pay a subscription fee to read published articles, either in print or online, but the concept of open access is growing more popular with the public.1Llona E. Making access to scholarship open.University of Washington Library Directions. 2004; 14: 1-3Google Scholar The cost of preparing scientific material for publication has traditionally been borne by subscribers—including institutions like the AAO—perhaps with some help from advertisers. In an open-access world, where everyone has free access to all research that has been approved for publication, subscriber numbers will plummet. Why pay to subscribe when you can read the issue online for free? But if no one subscribes, who will foot the bill?Let the government pay for it, advocate some who see no end to deficit spending. Yes, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds $28 billion in research through grants every year, but most clinical orthodontic studies are not funded by large government grants. Some suggest that authors could pay to have their findings published, but I know many researchers would balk at paying the total cost of publishing their research. Another option is to ask for voluntary contributions to support the publication of scientific findings. This sounds appealing on the surface, but those of you who volunteer with charitable organizations know how difficult it is to obtain adequate long-term funding, especially for operational costs. Based on my fundraising history, this is not the answer.A third option, and one with great appeal in some quarters, is to seek private or commercial funding. Yes, there is money in orthodontics, so why not go to corporations that benefit financially from our business success—the manufacturers and suppliers of orthodontic goods and services? We can look to a model of this approach in medicine, especially some of the more popular specialties whose members dispense prescription drugs. Their meetings and speaker expenses are often paid for by drug companies. But is this the end of the perks handed out? According to a column in the Tacoma News Tribune (reprinted from the Los Angeles Times) last December, at least 530 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees or stock options from biomedical companies in the past 5 years.2Willman D. At least 530 scientists got fees, stock in conflicts of interest, records show.Tacoma News Tribune. 2004; (Dec 22 Business sect.)Google Scholar Information gathered by a congressional committee also shows that NIH researchers have repeatedly crossed the line by accepting outside consulting fees from private companies without declaring their affiliations with those companies. Reports the Times, “Dr. P. Trey Sunderland, a senior psychiatiric researcher, took $508,050 in fees and related income from Pfizer Inc. at the same time he collaborated with Pfizer—in his government capacity—in studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease.” Many of these fees are not disclosed to Congress, the public, or the nation’s doctors, who, in turn, rely on recommendations from the NIH and its scientists, such as Dr Sunderland.I am wary of commercial influence and the conflicts of interest that can develop when big money comes to the people who have the most influence on the success or failure of a particular service or product.I still favor keeping the user involved in paying part of the cost of publishing research. Having taken this stand, I am not in favor of putting my head in the sand and doing nothing. Publishing more of our research findings only in an electronic format is one way to reduce costs. But for my money, the sustainability of a new economic model for open access remains to be seen. We need more answers to the questions about open-access publishing. The primary goal of most dental publications is to link the results of new research with the clinicians who deliver patient care. The more efficient this transfer of information, the more quickly treatment will be altered, resulting in better outcomes for the patient. Recent advances in information and communication technologies mean research results can be disseminated with ever-increasing efficiency. But our expanding ability to share information and the increasing need of researchers to access information quickly is driving a major change in how journals operate. Currently, most journals, including the AJO-DO, require readers to pay a subscription fee to read published articles, either in print or online, but the concept of open access is growing more popular with the public.1Llona E. Making access to scholarship open.University of Washington Library Directions. 2004; 14: 1-3Google Scholar The cost of preparing scientific material for publication has traditionally been borne by subscribers—including institutions like the AAO—perhaps with some help from advertisers. In an open-access world, where everyone has free access to all research that has been approved for publication, subscriber numbers will plummet. Why pay to subscribe when you can read the issue online for free? But if no one subscribes, who will foot the bill? Let the government pay for it, advocate some who see no end to deficit spending. Yes, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funds $28 billion in research through grants every year, but most clinical orthodontic studies are not funded by large government grants. Some suggest that authors could pay to have their findings published, but I know many researchers would balk at paying the total cost of publishing their research. Another option is to ask for voluntary contributions to support the publication of scientific findings. This sounds appealing on the surface, but those of you who volunteer with charitable organizations know how difficult it is to obtain adequate long-term funding, especially for operational costs. Based on my fundraising history, this is not the answer. A third option, and one with great appeal in some quarters, is to seek private or commercial funding. Yes, there is money in orthodontics, so why not go to corporations that benefit financially from our business success—the manufacturers and suppliers of orthodontic goods and services? We can look to a model of this approach in medicine, especially some of the more popular specialties whose members dispense prescription drugs. Their meetings and speaker expenses are often paid for by drug companies. But is this the end of the perks handed out? According to a column in the Tacoma News Tribune (reprinted from the Los Angeles Times) last December, at least 530 government scientists at the NIH have taken fees or stock options from biomedical companies in the past 5 years.2Willman D. At least 530 scientists got fees, stock in conflicts of interest, records show.Tacoma News Tribune. 2004; (Dec 22 Business sect.)Google Scholar Information gathered by a congressional committee also shows that NIH researchers have repeatedly crossed the line by accepting outside consulting fees from private companies without declaring their affiliations with those companies. Reports the Times, “Dr. P. Trey Sunderland, a senior psychiatiric researcher, took $508,050 in fees and related income from Pfizer Inc. at the same time he collaborated with Pfizer—in his government capacity—in studying patients with Alzheimer’s disease.” Many of these fees are not disclosed to Congress, the public, or the nation’s doctors, who, in turn, rely on recommendations from the NIH and its scientists, such as Dr Sunderland. I am wary of commercial influence and the conflicts of interest that can develop when big money comes to the people who have the most influence on the success or failure of a particular service or product. I still favor keeping the user involved in paying part of the cost of publishing research. Having taken this stand, I am not in favor of putting my head in the sand and doing nothing. Publishing more of our research findings only in an electronic format is one way to reduce costs. But for my money, the sustainability of a new economic model for open access remains to be seen. We need more answers to the questions about open-access publishing.
Publication Year: 2005
Publication Date: 2005-04-01
Language: en
Type: article
Indexed In: ['crossref']
Access and Citation
Cited By Count: 1
AI Researcher Chatbot
Get quick answers to your questions about the article from our AI researcher chatbot