ArticleEmergency medicine journal : EMJ2006
An evaluation of emergency medicine investigators' views on open access to medical literature.
Article in Emergency medicine journal : EMJ, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Open access: the alternative to subscription-based medical publishing.The western journal of emergency medicine · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundScientists and governmental agencies have called for free universal access to research publications via the internet--open access.
objectivesTo examine the current medical literature reading practices of emergency medicine investigators (EMIs) and their views towards open access.
methodsSurveys were mailed to the 212 corresponding authors of all original research articles published in years 2002 and 2003 in the Annals of Emergency Medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine and The Journal of Emergency Medicine.
resultsThe most commonly read forms of medical literature reported by the 129 (61%) EMI respondents were hard-copy medical journals and online literature review services. 59% of EMIs were in favour of open access; 58% stated they would read a wider variety of medical literature; 21% believed open access would improve the quality of publications and 39% thought it would decrease the quality. When asked how a US 1500 dollars fee for open access would affect their ability to publish research, 69% said it would greatly impede and 19% said it would slightly impede their research.
conclusionsDespite concerns that open access may impede their ability to publish research and decrease the quality of publications, most EMIs surveyed favoured open access. They believed open access would increase and broaden their medical literature reading.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.