ReviewJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2006
Open access: implications for scholarly publishing and medical libraries.
Review in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Keeping the promise: a critique of the current state of microdosing research.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Pooled it
- Theoretical issues in medical library and information sciences' articles published in scopus and web of science databases: A scoping review.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Factors Affecting the Use of Medical Articles for Citation and Academic Reference.Advances in medical education and practice · 2022Article
- Health sciences librarians' engagement in open science: a scoping review.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2021Article
- The use of nutritional guidance within chiropractic patient management: a survey of 333 chiropractors from the ACORN practice-based research network.Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2018Article
- Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review.F1000Research · 2018Review
- The dream of health information for all.F1000Research · 2016Article
- [Reading behavior and preferences regarding subscriptions to scientific journals : Results of a survey of members of the German Society for General and Visceral Surgery].Der Chirurg; Zeitschrift fur alle Gebiete der operativen Medizen · 2015Article
- Open access publishing: a study of current practices in orthopaedic research.International orthopaedics · 2014Review
- A small field for fertile science: the low visibility of reproductive science in high impact journals.Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics · 2014Article
- Open access: academic publishing and its implications for knowledge equity in Kenya.Globalization and health · 2014Article
- The UK Freedom of Information Act (2000) in healthcare research: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2013Article
- Are pediatric Open Access journals promoting good publication practice? An analysis of author instructions.BMC pediatrics · 2011Article
- Our Eye is on the Future.Middle East African journal of ophthalmology · 2010Article
- National Institutes of Health public access policy assistance: one library's approach.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2009Article
- Defrosting the digital library: bibliographic tools for the next generation web.PLoS computational biology · 2008Review
- Authorship: why not just toss a coin?American journal of physiology. Cell physiology · 2008Article
- The self-archiving principle: a momentous trek.Postgraduate medical journal · 2007Review
- The Rise of Open Access Journals in Radiation Oncology: Influence on Resident Research, 2015 to 2019.Advances in radiation oncologyArticle
- Tear down the walls: Disseminating open access research for a global impact.International journal of health sciencesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe paper reviews and analyzes the evolution of the open access (OA) publishing movement and its impact on the traditional scholarly publishing model. PROCEDURES: A literature survey and analysis of definitions of OA, problems with the current publishing model, historical developments, funding agency responses, stakeholder viewpoints, and implications for scientific libraries and publishing are performed.
findingsThe Internet's transformation of information access has fueled interest in reshaping what many see as a dysfunctional, high-cost system of scholarly publishing. For years, librarians alone advocated for change, until relatively recently when interest in OA and related initiatives spread to the scientific community, governmental groups, funding agencies, publishers, and the general public.
conclusionsMost stakeholders acknowledge that change in the publishing landscape is inevitable, but heated debate continues over what form this transformation will take. The most frequently discussed remedies for the troubled current system are the "green" road (self-archiving articles published in non-OA journals) and the "gold" road (publishing in OA journals). Both movements will likely intensify, with a multiplicity of models and initiatives coexisting for some time.
Indexed as
Identifiers
16888657PMC1525322What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.