New evidence shows PubMed Central undermines journal usage

PubMed Central may draw readership away from biomedical journal sites, with this effect increasing over time. This finding—that PubMed Central directly competes with biomedical publishers—was published online in The FASEB Journal. In the study, Phillip M. Davis shows that as articles are deposited in PubMed Central, they draw readership away from the scientific journal even when journals themselves are providing free access to the articles. Over time, this may weaken the ability of journals to build communities of interest around research papers, impede the communication of news and events to scientific society members and journal readers, and ultimately reduce the perceived value of the journal to subscribers.

"I hope that studies like these will help inform the public debate on the effects of literature repositories on various stakeholders and aid in the formation of evidence-based public policy," said Philip M. Davis, Ph.D. Ithaca, New York.

To reach his conclusions, Davis conducted a longitudinal, retrospective cohort analysis of 13,223 articles published in 14 society-run biomedical research journals in nutrition, , physiology, and radiology between February 2008 and January 2011. He found that there was a 21.4 percent reduction in full text HTML article downloads and a 13.8 percent reduction in PDF article downloads from the journals' websites when NIH-sponsored articles become freely available from the PubMed Central repository. In addition, the effect of PubMed Central on reducing PDF article downloads is increasing over time, growing at a rate of 1.6 percent per year. There was no longitudinal effect for full text HTML downloads.

"Traditionally, scientific societies published the of their members in their own journals. This collegial nexus has been extended – some say disrupted – by the of research reports in PubMed Central," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal. "This report documents that PubMed Central, which duplicates the archives of most journals, draws readers away from the unique editorial flavor – and critical editorial comment - of the journals' websites. Essentially, PubMed Central has become a secondary site for the federal government to republish research text without context."

More information: Philip M. Davis. Public accessibility of biomedical articles from PubMed Central reduces journal readership—retrospective cohort analysis FASEB J. DOI:10.1096/fj.13-229922 ; http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/2013/04/02/fj.13-229922.full.pdf+html.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Free articles get read but don't generate more citations

Jul 31, 2008

When academic articles are "open access" or free online, they get read more often, but they don't -- going against conventional wisdom -- get cited more often in academic literature, finds a new Cornell study.

Recommended for you

Cold cash just keeps washing in from ALS challenge

1 hour ago

In the couple of hours it took an official from the ALS Association to return a reporter's call for comment, the group's ubiquitous "ice bucket challenge" had brought in a few million more dollars.

Medtronic spends $350M on another European deal

17 hours ago

U.S. medical device maker Medtronic is building stronger ties to Europe, a couple months after announcing a $42.9 billion acquisition that involves moving its main executive offices across the Atlantic, where it can get a ...

Mind over matter for people with disabilities

Aug 26, 2014

People with serious physical disabilities are unable to do the everyday things that most of us take for granted despite having the will – and the brainpower – to do so. This is changing thanks to European ...

Ukraine's former world's tallest man dies

Aug 25, 2014

Ukraine's tallest man, who briefly held the world record but gave it up to live as a recluse, has died due to complications from the condition that saw him never stop growing, local media reported Monday.

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
not rated yet Apr 03, 2013
Instead of closing PubMed to save the journals, I think we should let the journals wither. Instead, new web sites may (and should) pop up, where the PubMed articles are reviewed and discussed, and there should be editorials presenting the most relevant and interesting ones.

What we need is as efficient dissemination of information as possible. The old model with the journals has had its day.

These new sites would be for-profit, and compete with each other with quality and relevance of their content, while the actual articles would stay on PubMed and be free. I think this model would be applicable on other areas as well.

The serious professional needs sites like this, and is willing to pay for it.