Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24755534›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2014

Is Biblioleaks inevitable?

Adam G Dunn, Enrico Coiera, Kenneth D Mandl

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Erratum to: Should We be More "Open" About Publishing Research?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2015
    Article
  4. Automatic evidence retrieval for systematic reviews.Journal of medical Internet research · 2014
    Article
  5. Should We be More "Open" About Publishing Research?Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology of India · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Adam G DunnCentre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, The University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia. a.dunn@unsw.edu.au.
Enrico Coiera
Kenneth D Mandl

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2014, the vast majority of published biomedical research is still hidden behind paywalls rather than open access. For more than a decade, similar restrictions over other digitally available content have engendered illegal activity. Music file sharing became rampant in the late 1990s as communities formed around new ways to share. The frequency and scale of cyber-attacks against commercial and government interests has increased dramatically. Massive troves of classified government documents have become public through the actions of a few. Yet we have not seen significant growth in the illegal sharing of peer-reviewed academic articles. Should we truly expect that biomedical publishing is somehow at less risk than other content-generating industries? What of the larger threat--a "Biblioleaks" event--a database breach and public leak of the substantial archives of biomedical literature? As the expectation that all research should be available to everyone becomes the norm for a younger generation of researchers and the broader community, the motivations for such a leak are likely to grow. We explore the feasibility and consequences of a Biblioleaks event for researchers, journals, publishers, and the broader communities of doctors and the patients they serve.

Indexed as

Access to InformationBiomedical ResearchComputer SecurityPublishingCopyrightHumansPubMedbibliographic databasescompromising of dataopen accesspeer-to-peer architecturespublic access to information

Identifiers

PMID24755534
PMCPMC4019771

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.