PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v478)
m (Bot: HTTP→HTTPS (v478))
A UK version of the PubMed Central system, [[UK PubMed Central (UKPMC)]], has been developed by the [[Wellcome Trust]] and the [[British Library]] as part of a nine-strong group of UK research funders. This system went live in January 2007. On 1 November 2012, it became [[Europe PubMed Central]]. The Canadian member of the PubMed Central International network, [[PubMed Central Canada]], was launched in October 2009.
The [[National Library of Medicine]] "NLM Journal Publishing Tag Set" journal article [[markup language]] is freely available.<ref>{{cite web|title=Journal Publishing Tag Set|url=|publisher=National Center for Biotechnology Information|accessdate=6 November 2013}}</ref> The [[Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers]] comments that "it is likely to become the standard for preparing scholarly content for both books and journals".<ref>{{cite web|last=French|first=Diane|title=ALPSP Technology Update: A Standard XML Document Format: The case for the adoption of NLM DTD|url=;6f7e7fea.06|publisher=ALPSP|accessdate=6 November 2013|date=4 August 2006}}</ref> A related [[Document Type Definition|DTD]] is available for books.<ref>[ NLM-NCBI Book Tag Set]</ref> The [[Library of Congress]] and the British Library have announced support for the NLM DTD.<ref>{{cite web|title=News from the Library of Congress|url=|work=Library of Congress|accessdate=6 November 2013|date=19 April 2006}}</ref> It has also been popular with journal service providers.<ref>[ Inera NLM DTD Resources]</ref>
With the release of public access plans for many agencies beyond NIH, PMC is in the process of becoming the repository for a wider variety of articles.<ref>[ Public Access Plans of U.S. Federal Agencies]</ref> This includes NASA content, with the interface branded as "PubSpace".<ref>[ Public Access to Results of NASA-funded Research]</ref><ref>[ PubSpace]</ref>
The Antelman study of open access publishing found that in philosophy, political science, electrical and electronic engineering and mathematics, [[Open access (publishing)|open access]] papers had a greater research impact.<ref>{{cite web| url =| title = Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? | publisher = College & Research Libraries 65(5) | date = September 2004 | pages =372–382| author = Kristin Antelman}} and summarized by [ C&RL News]</ref> A randomised trial found an increase in content downloads of open access papers, with no citation advantage over subscription access one year after publication.<ref>[ Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial]</ref>
The change in procedure has received criticism.<ref>[ C&RL News: Scholarly Communication in Flux: Entrenchment and Opportunity] Kate Thomes, Science & Technology Libraries 22, no. 3/4 (220): 104 "Many faculty see the current system of scholarly communication as an effective, known, and reliable system that is not broken and therefore does not need to be fixed".</ref> The American Physiological Society has expressed reservations about the implementation of the policy.<ref>[ The American Physiological Society] "Although the American Physiological Society (APS) supports the principle of public access, the NIH approach is a mallet rather than a scalpel. It is likely to harm publishers, which will in turn harm the dissemination of science through the literature".</ref>