scholarly journals Publishing trends of journals with manuscripts in PubMed Central: changes from 2008–2009 to 2015–2016

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Topper ◽  
Diane Boehr
Keyword(s):  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Manuscript Submission ◽  
National Library ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
The Public ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
Bibliographic Data

Objective: The National Institutes of Health (NIH) public access policy mandates that all articles containing NIH-funded research must be deposited into PubMed Central (PMC). The aim of this study was to assess publishing trends of journals that were not selected for the National Library of Medicine (NLM) collection but contain NIH-funded articles submitted to PMC in compliance with the public access policy. In addition, the authors investigated the degree to which NIH-funded research is published in journals that NLM does not collect due to concerns with the publishers.Methods: We analyzed bibliographic data from the NIH Manuscript Submission system for journals that were not selected for the NLM collection from August 2015 to August 2016. Publications (n=738) were analyzed by language, publishing country, publishing format, and subject, and the results were compared to a similar study of 2008–2009 data. In addition, publications were analyzed by whether their publishers are collected by NLM, as determined by transparency and adherence to publishing best practices.Results: Only a few differences were found between the studies. Most notably, while both studies revealed that most journals were not selected for the NLM collection because they were out of scope (i.e., not biomedical), we noted an increase in 2015–2016 in biomedical journals containing NIH-funded articles that were not added to the collection due to concerns with the publishers.Conclusions: While the current number of NIH-funded manuscripts being published by publishers that are not collected by NLM remains quite small, we noted a substantial increase between 2008–2009 and 2015–2016.

scholarly journals Mandating access: assessing the NIH’s public access policy

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (102) ◽  
pp. 269-304 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph Staudt
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
The Public ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Open Access Journals ◽  
Widespread Access ◽  
Matched Comparison ◽  
Modest Effect

SUMMARY In April 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented the Public Access Policy (PAP), which mandated that the full text of NIH-supported articles be made freely available on PubMed Central – the NIH’s repository of biomedical research. This paper uses 600,000 NIH articles and a matched comparison sample to examine how the PAP impacted researcher access to the biomedical literature and publishing patterns in biomedicine. Though some estimates allow for large citation increases after the PAP, the most credible estimates suggest that the PAP had a relatively modest effect on citations, which is consistent with most researchers having widespread access to the biomedical literature prior to the PAP, leaving little room to increase access. I also find that NIH articles are more likely to be published in traditional subscription-based journals (as opposed to ‘open access’ journals) after the PAP. This indicates that any discrimination the PAP induced, by subscription-based journals against NIH articles, was offset by other factors – possibly the decisions of editors and submission behaviour of authors.

scholarly journals Public Access Week: New NIH Public Access Policy starts Today

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin Fenner
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Public Access ◽  
National Library ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Funded Research

Around Christmas, mandatory open access for NIH-funded research was signed into law:The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of ...

scholarly journals “Publishers Did Not Take the Bait”: A Forgotten Precursor to the NIH Public Access Policy

2009 ◽  
Vol 70 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-132
Author(s):  
Jonathan Miller
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Education Policy ◽  
The United States ◽  
Information Environment ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Public Access ◽  
Digital Information ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Funded Research ◽  
Nih Policy

This article compares the recent National Institutes of Health (NIH) Public Access Policy (2005–07) with the United States Office of Education policy on copyright in funded research (1965–70). The two policies and the differing technological and political contexts of the periods are compared and contrasted. The author concludes that a more nuanced approach to copyright, the digital information environment, and the support of an energized user community auger well for the success of the NIH policy, but that it is still too soon to tell.

scholarly journals The NIH public access policy did not harm biomedical journals

PLoS Biology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (10) ◽  
pp. e3000352
Author(s):  
A. Townsend Peterson ◽  
Paul E. Johnson ◽  
Narayani Barve ◽  
Ada Emmett ◽  
Marc L. Greenberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Access ◽  
Access Policy ◽  
Biomedical Journals

scholarly journals PubMed Central: An Essential Resource for Information Professionals and Researchers

2013 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 261
Author(s):  
Joanne L. Jordan
Keyword(s):  
Biomedical Research ◽  
Selection Criteria ◽  
Original Research ◽  
National Library ◽  
Electronic Journals ◽  
Pubmed Central ◽  
Biomedical Journals ◽  
The Future ◽  
Subject Areas ◽  
The Subject

Objective – A review of the journals containing research listed in PubMed Central (PMC), but not selected for inclusion in the National Library of Medicine (NLM) collection. The authors identified reasons why journals had not been included in the collection and if any met the NLM selection criteria and were appropriate for inclusion. Design – Descriptive study. Setting – National Library of Medicine, United States. Subjects – 571 journals that were not included in the NLM collection but had research articles in PMC. Methods – In October 2009, a report was produced from the NLM library system listing journals tagged as having articles in PMC and not being in the NLM collection. Information was gathered on the journals identified and these were checked against the Collection Development Manual of the NLM and the NLM checklist used for selecting electronic journals. The reason for non-selection of the journal was recorded and the subject category, according to the Library of Congress Classification, was noted. Recorded reasons why journals were not selected: • Less than 15% of articles were within scope of NLM collection • Not enough articles published • Coverage (lacking original research or not for a scholarly audience) • Insufficient information to determine reason For journals where the criteria seemed to be met, the decision on selection to the NLM collection was reviewed. Main Results – The authors identified 571 journals that had articles in PMC but did not meet the criteria for inclusion in the NLM journal collection. The majority of these journals (73%) were outside the NLM scope and a further 10% had not published a sufficient number of articles to be considered. A further 3% were assessed as not intended for a scholarly audience or lacked original research and another 3% could not be reviewed due to lack of information available. There were 65 journals (11%) that were referred for further review as the selection criteria seemed to be met and 11 of these journals have subsequently been added to the NLM collection. This is in relation to 482 new print and electronic journals in total that were added to the NLM collection in 2009. However, only 369 of the 571 journals (65%) had one or more articles included in PMC; of these, 238 had one article and 33 had more than four articles in the archive. The reason that some journals had no articles in PMC at the time of this review was due to the time it takes to process new articles and embargos set by the publishers that restrict immediate listing on open access databases such as PMC. A number of these journals may also be new and may not have had a sufficient number of articles or enough information available to be able to include them in the NLM collection. To add context, the authors state that PMC contained over 115,000 NIH-funded articles by the end of November 2010. The subject areas these non-selected journals were classified under included Engineering (15%); Medicine (14%); Mathematics (10%); Chemistry (10%); and Computer Science (9%). Library Science was assigned to 2% of the journals. The Medicine journals were more likely than those in the other subject areas to be new journals without sufficient articles to be included in the NLM collection. Conclusion – When the journal title is out of the scope of the NLM collection, an individual article in that journal can still be included in PMC. This provides a solution to the problem of how to collect biomedical research that is not published in biomedical journals. This may be more important in the future as the field becomes more interdisciplinary. This also provides a useful resource for libraries and researchers searching for full-text biomedical articles. The authors conclude that analyzing the articles from the journals not selected for inclusion in the NLM collection will provide helpful information about the types of biomedical research being published in non-biomedical journals. This will highlight particular areas the NLM should pay attention to in the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document