10月7日，全球最大的出版商之一Springer宣布收购Open Access办得比较成功的出版机构之一Biomed Central。这是OA史上的一件大事。不知为何，科学网上、科学网博客上相关报道和评论不多。

In a major—if not unexpected—deal, Springer, the world’s second largest publisher of commercial STM (science, technology, and medicine) journals, has acquired pioneering for-profit open access (OA) publisher BioMed Central (BMC). Financial terms were not disclosed. 

On the balance sheet, adding BioMed Central would seem to be a very minor deal for Springer; BioMed Central publishes some 193 open access journals with revenues of roughly $24.5 million, while Springer publishes over 1700 journals in addition to 5500 new books annually, with revenues nearly $1.25 billion. It is a significant event in the history of open access publishing, however, as a leading commercial publisher has now expressed confidence in a business model once deemed, at best, experimental, and often called untenable.

“This acquisition reinforces the fact that we see open access publishing as a sustainable part of STM publishing, and not an ideological crusade,” Derk Haank, CEO of Springer Science Business Media, said in a statement, adding that the company’s experience with its version of OA, Springer Open Choice in 2004, has been positive. “This acquisition strengthens Springer’s position in the life sciences and biomedicine,” he said, “and will allow us to offer societies a greater range of publishing options.”

更多报道见：http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA6602778.html

http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-science/post.cfm?id=open-access-publisher-biomed-centra-2008-10-07

由于Elsevier和Springer都在一个行业里，不便随意评论，仅把一些值得思考的问题罗列如下：

一，OA真的是一切免费吗？商业公司的生存基础是利润（这是社会给它规定的使命），如果一切免费，商业公司是不会出手的。对读者免费，对作者就要收费，BMC的主要模式是向作者收取1000-3000美元不等的发表费用。

二，OA出版机构是否应该保持独立？并入商业公司是否会影响到科研的质量？从爱思唯尔的角度看，在四种OA模式中，爱思唯尔唯一不采取作者付费模式，因为担心影响到论文的质量。

三，OA出版机构的商业模式是否有可持续性？据Nature七月份的一篇文章说，两大OA出版机械的经济情况都不好，BMC正在寻求买家（现已证实），PLOS主要依靠慈善捐款。

四，政府是否应该出面？有政府应该出面的事，也有政府不该出面的事。关键要看对社会的净价值和对科研的效率的影响。私营领域效率比较高，十年来科技信息的数字化革命就是一个例证，科技出版（科技信息提供）交给私营领域是否比交给政府更有效率？ 

五，对中国意味着什么？建议看看武夷山老师《我对科学出版若干问题的看法》博文中关于开放获取的观点。http://www.sciencenet.cn/blog/user_content.aspx?id=39978

转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自张玉国科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-3686-44185.html

上一篇：何止于米， 相期以茶——与郭慕孙院士的一次短暂会面
下一篇：读什么小说