PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

→‎Reception: What procedure? Unclear statement. Seems to be redundant with statements above about diverted traffic, which reference more reliable sources.
(effect confirmed)
(→‎Reception: What procedure? Unclear statement. Seems to be redundant with statements above about diverted traffic, which reference more reliable sources.)
 
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=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>{{cite journal |doi=10.5860/crln.67.11.7720 |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==