ArticleDrug development research2017
From Gutenberg to Open Science: An Unfulfilled Odyssey.
Article in Drug development research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Preserving the Open Access Benefits Pioneered by the Journal of Medical Internet Research and Discouraging Fraudulent Journals.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Predatory journal preference in the field of Orthopaedics and Traumatology in Turkey.Acta orthopaedica et traumatologica turcica · 2019Article
- Open Access and Other Challenges of Present Day Journal Publishing.Journal of cytologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Preclinical Research With the almost global availability of the Internet comes the expectation of universal accessibility to knowledge, including scientific knowledge-particularly that generated by public funding. Currently this is not the case. In this Commentary we discuss access to this knowledge, the politics that govern peer review and publication, and the role of this knowledge as a public good in medicine. Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in 1440 opened an avenue for the distribution of scholarly information to the entire world. The scientific literature first appeared in 1665 with Le Journal des Sçavans followed in the same year by Philosophical Transactions. Today there are more than 5000 scientific publishing companies, 25,000 journals and 1.5 million articles published/year generating revenue of $25 billion USD. The European Union and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development have argued for open access (OA) to scientific data for all publicly funded research by 2020 with a similar initiative in the USA via the Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR). However, OA to published science is but one step in this odyssey. If the products of science are not openly available then it can be argued that the norms of science as defined by Merton including "universalism" and "communalism" have yet to be accomplished. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the delivery of medicines to the poor and for rare diseases, the attempts to privatize human genetic information and, not least, dealing with the challenges of antibiotic resistance and new disease pandemics exacerbated by climate change. Drug Dev Res 78 : 3-23, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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.