PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

41 bytes removed ,  2 years ago
m
ce
(Filled in 10 bare reference(s) with reFill ())
m (ce)
}}
 
'''PubMed Central''' ('''PMC''') is a free [[digital repository]] that archives [[open access|publicly accessible]] full-text scholarly articles that have been published within the [[biomedical]] and [[life sciences]] journal literature. As one of the major research databases within the suite of resources that have been developed by the [[National Center for Biotechnology Information]] (NCBI), PubMed Central is much more than just a document repository. Submissions into PMC undergo an indexing and formatting procedure which results in enhanced metadata, [[medical ontologies|medical ontology]], and unique identifiers which all enrich the XML structured data for each article on deposit.<ref>{{cite journal | doi = 10.4242/BalisageVol6.Beck01 | title=Report from the Field: PubMed Central, an XML-based Archive of Life Sciences Journal Articles | journal=Proceedings of the International Symposium on XML for the Long Haul: Issues in the Long-term Preservation of XML | last1 = Beck | first1 = Jeff}}</ref> Content within PMC can easily be interlinked to many other NCBI databases and accessed via [[Entrez]] search and retrieval systems, further enhancing the public's ability to freely discover, read and build upon this portfolio of biomedical knowledge.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153388/|title=PubMed Central|first1=Chris|last1=Maloney|first2=Ed|last2=Sequeira|first3=Christopher|last3=Kelly|first4=Rebecca|last4=Orris|first5=Jeffrey|last5=Beck|date=5 December 2013|publisher=National Center for Biotechnology Information (US)|via=www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov}}</ref>
 
PubMed Central should not be confused with [[PubMed]]. These are two very different services at their core.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/factsheets/dif_med_pub.html|title=MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different?|author=|date=|website=www.nlm.nih.gov}}</ref> While PubMed is a searchable database of biomedical citations and abstracts, the full-text article referenced in the PubMed record will physically reside elsewhere. (Sometimes in print, sometimes online, sometimes free, sometimes behind a toll-wall accessible only to paying subscribers). PubMed Central is a free digital archive of articles, accessible to anyone from anywhere via a basic web browser. The full text of all PubMed Central articles is free to read, with varying provisions for reuse.
Reactions to PubMed Central among the scholarly publishing community range between a genuine enthusiasm by some,<ref>[http://www.plos.org/plos-applauds-congress-for-action-on-open-access/ PLOS Applauds Congress for Action on Open Access]</ref> to cautious concern by others.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-(%23277)%20acs.pdf|title=ACS Submission to the Office of Science and Technology Policy Request for Information on Public Access to Peer-Reviewed Scholarly Publications Resulting from Federally Funded Research|author=|date=|website=whitehouse.gov}}</ref> While PMC is a welcome partner to open access publishers in its ability to augment the discovery and dissemination of biomedical knowledge, that same truth causes others to worry about traffic being diverted from the published version-of-record, the economic consequences of less readership, as well as the effect on maintaining a community of scholars within learned societies.<ref>[http://www.the-aps.org/mm/Publications/Journals/Physiologist/2010-present/2012/October.pdf Davis PM. The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership. Physiologist. 2012 Oct;55(5):161, 163-5]</ref> Libraries, universities, open access supporters, consumer health advocacy groups, and patient rights organizations have applauded PubMed Central, and hope to see similar public access repositories developed by other federal funding agencies so to freely share any research publications that were the result of taxpayer support.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.autismspeaks.org/about-us/press-releases/autism-speaks-announces-new-policy-give-families-easy-free-access-key-resear|title=Autism Speaks Announces New Policy to Give Families Easy, Free Access to Key Research Findings - Press Release - Autism Speaks|author=|date=25 July 2012|website=www.autismspeaks.org}}</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 = http://crl.acrl.org/content/65/5/372.full.pdf+html| 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 [http://crln.acrl.org/content/67/11/692 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>{{cite journal|url=https://www.bmj.com/content/337/bmj.a568|title=Open access publishing, article downloads, and citations: randomised controlled trial|first1=Philip M.|last1=Davis|first2=Bruce V.|last2=Lewenstein|first3=Daniel H.|last3=Simon|first4=James G.|last4=Booth|first5=Mathew J. L.|last5=Connolly|date=31 July 2008|publisher=|journal=BMJ|volume=337|pages=a568|via=www.bmj.com|doi=10.1136/bmj.a568|pmid=18669565}}</ref>
 
The change in procedure has received criticism.<ref>[http://crln.acrl.org/content/67/11/692 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>[https://web.archive.org/web/20120120070145/http://www.the-aps.org/news/nihaccessplan.htm 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>