PubMed Central: Difference between revisions

217 bytes added ,  6 months ago
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0
(Alter: url. Add: archive-date, archive-url. Removed parameters. | You can use this bot yourself. Report bugs here. | Activated by Amigao | Category:Open-access archives | via #UCB_Category)
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0)
 
== Reception ==
Reactions to PubMed Central among the scholarly publishing community range between a genuine enthusiasm by some,<ref>[{{Cite web |url=http://www.plos.org/plos-applauds-congress-for-action-on-open-access/ |title=PLOS Applauds Congress for Action on Open Access] |access-date=2014-02-07 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160507051709/https://www.plos.org/plos-applauds-congress-for-action-on-open-access/ |archive-date=2016-05-07 |url-status=dead }}</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|url-status=dead|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 | vauthors = Davis PM | title = The effect of public deposit of scientific articles on readership | journal = The Physiologist | volume = 55 | issue = 5 | pages = 161, 163–5 | date = October 2012 | pmid = 23155924 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | vauthors = Davis PM | title = Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership--retrospective cohort analysis | journal = FASEB Journal | volume = 27 | issue = 7 | pages = 2536–41 | date = July 2013 | pmid = 23554455 | pmc = 3688741 | doi = 10.1096/fj.13-229922 }}</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 | vauthors = Davis PM | title = Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership--retrospective cohort analysis | journal = FASEB Journal | volume = 27 | issue = 7 | pages = 2536–41 | date = July 2013 | pmid = 23554455 | pmc = 3688741 | doi = 10.1096/fj.13-229922 }}</ref>