PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

effect confirmed
(→‎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...)
(effect confirmed)
== Reception ==
Reactions to PubMed Central among the scholarly publishing community range between a genuine enthusiasm by some,<ref>[ PLOS Applauds Congress for Action on Open Access]</ref> to cautious concern by others.<ref>{{cite web|url=|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=||access-date=2014-02-07|archive-url=|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>{{Cite journal |pmid = 23155924|year = 2012|last1 = Davis|first1 = P. M.|title = The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership|journal = The Physiologist|volume = 55|issue = 5|pages = 161, 163–5}}</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.13-229922|pmid=23554455 |pmc=3688741 }}</ref> A 2013 analysis found strong evidence that public repositories of published articles were responsible for "drawing significant numbers of readers away from journal websites" and that "the effect of PMC is growing over time".<ref>{{Cite journal |doi = 10.1096/fj.13-229922|pmid = 23554455|pmc = 3688741|title = Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership—retrospective cohort analysis|journal = The FASEB Journal|volume = 27|issue = 7|pages = 2536–2541|year = 2013|last1 = Davis|first1 = Philip M.}}</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=|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|}}</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 journal |doi = 10.5860/crl.65.5.372|title = Do Open-Access Articles Have a Greater Research Impact?|journal = College & Research Libraries|volume = 65|issue = 5|pages = 372–382|year = 2004|last1 = Antelman|first1 = Kristin}}, summarized by {{cite journal |doi = 10.5860/crln.67.11.7720|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> 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=|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>