PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

→‎Reception: | Alter: doi. Add: year, pages, issue, volume, journal, title, doi, author pars. 1-2. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Formatted dashes. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | Alter: template type. Add: pages, issue, volume, journal, title, year, pmid, author pars. 1-1. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Formatted dashes. | You can [[WP:UCB|u...
(Adding local short description: "Repository of scholarly manuscripts that are free to read" (Shortdesc helper))
(→‎Reception: | Alter: doi. Add: year, pages, issue, volume, journal, title, doi, author pars. 1-2. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Formatted dashes. | You can use this tool yourself. Report bugs here. | Alter: template type. Add: pages, issue, volume, journal, title, year, pmid, author pars. 1-1. Removed URL that duplicated unique identifier. Converted bare reference to cite template. Formatted dashes. | You can [[WP:UCB|u...)
 
== Reception ==
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|access-date=2014-02-07|archive-url=http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20120711094724/http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-%28%23278%29%20biomed.pdf|archive-date=2012-07-11|dead-url=yes|df=}}</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/{{Cite journal |pmid = 23155924|year = 2012/October.pdf|last1 = Davis|first1 = PMP. M.|title = The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership.|journal = The Physiologist.|volume 2012= Oct;55(|issue = 5):|pages = 161, 163163–5}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Davis |first1=Philip M. |title=Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership—retrospective cohort analysis |journal=The FASEB Journal |date=July 2013 |volume=27 |issue=7 |pages=2536–2541 |doi=10.1096/fj.13-5]229922}}</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 webjournal | urldoi = http:/10.5860/crl.acrl.org/content/65/.5/.372.full.pdf+html| title = Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact? | publisherjournal = College & Research Libraries|volume = 65(5) | dateissue = September 2004 5| pages = 372–382| authoryear = Kristin2004|last1 = Antelman|first1 = Kristin}} and, summarized by [http:/{{cite journal |doi = 10.5860/crln.acrl.org/content/67/.11/692.7720|title = Scholarly communication: Turning crisis into opportunity|journal = College C&RL Research Libraries News]|volume = 67|issue = 11|pages = 692–696|year = 2006|last1 = Stemper|first1 = Jim|last2 = Williams|first2 = Karen}}</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|doi=10.1136/bmj.a568|pmid=18669565|pmc=2492576}}</ref>
 
The change in procedure has received criticism.<ref>[http:/{{cite journal |doi=10.5860/crln.acrl67.org/content/67/11/692 C&RL News: Scholarly Communication in Flux: Entrenchment and Opportunity] Kate Thomes, Science & Technology Libraries 22, no.7720 3/4 (220): 104 "|quote=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".|title=Scholarly communication: Turning crisis into opportunity|journal=College & Research Libraries News|volume=67|issue=11|pages=692–696|year=2006|last1=Stemper|first1=Jim|last2=Williams|first2=Karen}}</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>
 
==PMCID==