2003
DOI: 10.1186/bcr617
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Breast Cancer Research: the move to introduce article-processing charges

Abstract: We believe that the open-access model will be more sustainable than the traditional subscription model, under which journal prices have been rising faster than inflation and faster than library budgets for three decades [5,6]. Between 1970 and 1995, the average subscription price of a science, technology or medical journal increased by 471% [4]. Consequently, subscriptions by academic institutions as well as by individual academics have decreased sharply, which means that researchers have access only to a smal… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2023
2023
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 5 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…When BioMed Central introduced APCs across its portfolio of journals, numerous editorials were published to justify this decision. The publisher stated that, since authors obtained the reward for publication, it was logical that they ‘cover the costs of peer review and publication’ (Schnelle et al, 2003, p. 218). In addition to underlining the benefits of access without economic barriers, to other scientists and the general public, the publisher gave three reasons to justify the APC model: it was more sustainable than the traditional subscription model and its price increases beyond inflation and library budgets (Marincola, 2003; Schnelle et al, 2003); authors retained copyright so the article could be published freely on the web, submitted to interested readers and colleagues and article components could be utilized in other publications without a request for permission (Bukovsky & Bazer, 2003); and free online articles were cited more because of their greater availability (Mathers & Murray, 2003; Velterop, 2003).…”
Section: The Apc Model To Sustain Oa Publishingmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…When BioMed Central introduced APCs across its portfolio of journals, numerous editorials were published to justify this decision. The publisher stated that, since authors obtained the reward for publication, it was logical that they ‘cover the costs of peer review and publication’ (Schnelle et al, 2003, p. 218). In addition to underlining the benefits of access without economic barriers, to other scientists and the general public, the publisher gave three reasons to justify the APC model: it was more sustainable than the traditional subscription model and its price increases beyond inflation and library budgets (Marincola, 2003; Schnelle et al, 2003); authors retained copyright so the article could be published freely on the web, submitted to interested readers and colleagues and article components could be utilized in other publications without a request for permission (Bukovsky & Bazer, 2003); and free online articles were cited more because of their greater availability (Mathers & Murray, 2003; Velterop, 2003).…”
Section: The Apc Model To Sustain Oa Publishingmentioning
confidence: 99%