Forwarding from the Open Access Forum. Hope it will be of interest to all.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Dear friends,

I read with interest the post (on UK Parliament New Inquiry on Scientific
Publications) provided below (also see UK Parliament
<http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/science_and_technology_committee/scitech111203a.cfm>Sci
and Tech Committee web site).

Many of you will agree with BMC statement: "Open Access publishing in
biology and medicine can support successful commercial publishing and be a
real partner to the scientific community at the same time. And this can no
longer be said about most of the traditional science publishing companies"
(<http://www.biomedcentral.com/openaccess/editorials/?issue=11>Open Access
Now Editorial, 15 Dec 2003).

Many of you will further agree that the latter part of the BMC statement
is not just the issue of "price and availability" of the subscription
journals.

The more basic question is the ability of these journals to serve
scientific/academic advancement and public interest.

The compromised academic integrity by several Elsevier and Elseviers' Cell
Press titles, and AAAS Science (and their apparent unwillingness to have
the broken norms fixed) is just a logic result of these journals service
of anything else (corporate interest? top officials private interest, an
apparent case for AAAS?) but not the public interest of unbiased
scientific development.

The sad examples are provided and referenced in my recent correspondence,
including the one entitled
"<http://www.podbaydoor.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1106>Open Letter
on a Call to Boycott [Elsevier] Cell
<http://www.podbaydoor.com/mt/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1106>Press" and
"<https://arl.org/Lists/SPARC-OAForum/Message/362.html>Why AAAS Science
unpublish correspondence questioning its academic integrity?"

The most ridiculous is the case of Elsevier Brain Research named by UK
Gardian
(<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1056608,00.html>Oct<http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1056608,00.html>.
6, 2003) the most expensive UK library serial. In June 2003 I informed
Eric Merkel-Sobotta, Elsevier Corporate Relation Director, that Brain
Research Editor-in-Chief, Dr.Floyd Bloom, has not disclosed competing
financial interest (see below). Since then Eric Merkel-Sobotta seems not
bothered by the fact of impaired academic integrity by the most expensive
Elsevier title. His only reply on my alerts was yesterday note: "Would you
please be so kind as to remove my name from your cc: distribution list? I
am already on all of the usual listservs, and so do not need to receive
your information separately. Thank you very much for your cooperation.
With best regards, Eric Merkel-Sobotta".

Here is another spicy fact. In June 2003 in my
"<http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/editors/alexeikoudinov/pdfdocs/submittedletters/koudinov2sageke16june03.html>Open
Letter to Donald Kennedy, AAAS Science Editor-in-Chief" I informed him
that Floyd Bloom,
<http://www.aaas.org/ScienceTalk/bloom.shtml>AAAS<http://www.aaas.org/ScienceTalk/bloom.shtml>
board chairman, immediate past AAAS Science Editor-in-Chief, and
<http://www.elsevier.com/inca/publications/misc/622287journals.html>the
sole Editor-in-Chief for
<http://www.elsevier.com/locate/brainres>Elsevier's Brain Research journal
series" is also a <http://www.neurome.com/company/people.html>Founding CEO
and Chairman of the Board of Neurome . Dr. F. Bloom did not disclose his
competing financial interest in his recent Presidential address published
in Science, and seem abused manuscript submission Track III mechanism in
his recent article at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
USA (PNAS).

The above is explained in details and accompanied by additional facts in
my
<http://neurobiologyoflipids.org/editors/alexeikoudinov/pdfdocs/submittedletters/koudinov2sageke16june03.html>Open
letter to Science Editor-in-Chief; the letter references provide links to
original documents. This letter, however, was unpublished by AAAS instead
of logical inquiry and determination.

Not a problem at all. I hope that British Parliament and investigative
journalists will come to the overdue attention to the above facts of
apparent corruption in addition to stated attention of UK inquiry to
"price and availability".

May I kindly ask the forum members to forward this e.mail to other
appropriate discussion lists.

Sincerely,

Alexei Koudinov, MD, PhD

---------------------------------------------------------
At 10:14 AM 12/18/2003 -0500, you wrote:
>[Forwarding from the Library Journal Academic Newswire via ScholComm.  --Peter.]
>
>
>Library Journal Academic Newswire (TM)
>The Publishing Report for December 18, 2003
>
>-------------------------------
>UK TO CONDUCT INQUIRY ON STM PUBLISHING IN 2004
>Once again, the British government will cast a wary eye on
>the scientific publishing industry, as the House of
>Commons' Science and Technology Committee will conduct an
>inquiry into STM publishing in 2004. Specifically, the
>committee will be looking "at access to journals within the
>scientific community, with particular reference to price
>and availability," according to a British Parliament press
>release. Key questions will focus on measures under way or
>being contemplated within government, the publishing
>industry and academic institutions to ensure that
>researchers, teachers, and students have access to the
>publications they need. The inquiry also will examine the
>impact that the current trend towards e-publishing may have
>on the integrity of journals and the scientific process. In
>announcing the inquiry, the chairman of the committee,
>Member of Parliament Ian Gibson, told reporters the issues
>for legislators were "easy access to scientific
>publications at a fair price" and the need for scientific
>journals to "maintain their credibility and integrity as
>they move into the age of e-publication." Written evidence
>should be submitted by Feb. 12, 2004, with oral evidence
>sessions slated to begin sometime in March.
>
>Gibson pledged that the committee would have some "very
>tough questions" for publishers, libraries and government.
>It remains to be seen, however, what actions could come out
>of the hearings. In 2002, the British Office for Fair
>Trading (OFT) issued a statement acknowledging that the STM
>market "has a number of features that suggest competition
>may not be working effectively." Still, OFT chief John
>Vickers at that time stopped well short of saying
>government intervention was needed, adding that "market
>forces harnessing new technology" could bring about change
>without intervention (see LJ Academic Newswire 9/12/02).
>For more information as well as guidelines on submitting
>testimony, visit:
>www.parliament.uk/commons/selcom/witguide.htm
>
>