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.

Related Stories

Free articles get read but don't generate more citations

date 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

Cardinal Health paying $26.8 million in FTC settlement

date 13 hours ago

Cardinal Health will pay $26.8 million as part of a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission over charges it monopolized the sale in 25 markets of diagnostic drugs known as low-energy radiopharmaceuticals.

Selecting the right tool for the job

date Apr 14, 2015

Randomized clinical trials of new drugs have long been considered the "gold standard" in determining safety and efficacy before drugs, biologics, vaccines or devices are introduced to the general public. However, in the case ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

gwrede
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.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.