ArticleResearch involvement and engagement2020
Open to the public: paywalls and the public rationale for open access medical research publishing.
Article in Research involvement and engagement, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 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
26 citing papers in PubMed.
- Enabling equitable open access to commercially funded research publications.PLoS medicine · 2026Article
- Generative artificial intelligence-driven chatbots and medical misinformation: an accuracy, referencing and readability audit.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Mind the gender gap: A Scoping Review of Inequalities in Dental Science and Leadership Short title: Mind the gender gap.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Article
- Article
- Article
- Suitable Evaluation Frameworks for Disease-Agnostic Platforms for Remote Patient Monitoring: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Caught in the Web of Words: Do LLMs Fall for Spin in Medical Literature?Proceedings of machine learning research · 2025Article
- "I just don't know enough": Australian perspectives on community involvement in health and medical research.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Leaving no patient behind! Expert recommendation in the use of innovative technologies for diagnosing rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Review
- Prioritizing open science in space medicine: perspectives following the NASA "Transform to Open Science (TOPS)" Curriculum.Irish journal of medical science · 2024Article
- Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration.Integrative medicine research · 2024Article
- Equitable and effective clinical guidance development and dissemination: trauma aims to lead the way.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2024Article
- A pathway to strengthening open science: comments on the draftFrontiers in pharmacology · 2024Review
- Perspectives of old-age and dementia researchers on communication with policymakers and public research funding decision-makers: an international cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Article
- Evidence Hub: A place to exchange medical knowledge and form communities.Learning health systems · 2023Article
- A genderful research world: rapid review, design, and pilot study of an interactive platform for curated sex and gender health research resources.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- The call for science communication and public scholarship.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Factors Associated With Open Access Publishing Costs in Oncology Journals: Cross-sectional Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- The Journal of Parkinson's Disease Takes the Open Road.Journal of Parkinson's disease · 2023Article
- Health Policy and Systems Research Capacities in Ethiopia and Ghana: Findings From a Self-Assessment.Global health, science and practice · 2022Article
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
Abstract
Public voices have largely been absent from the discussions about open access publishing in medical research. Yet the public have a strong interest in ensuring open access of medical research findings because of their roles as funders, advocates, research participants, and patients. By limiting access to research outputs, the current publishing system makes it more difficult for research to be held accountable to the public. Paywalls undermine the work of public advocacy, which requires open access in order to lobby for policy changes and research funding. Research participants generously give their time and energy to research studies with the assumption that the results will be broadly disseminated. Finally, members of the public have a stake in open access publishing as a resource for health information and decision-making. This commentary explores these crucial roles of the public in order to develop a public rationale for open access medical research. We outline a critique of the current academic publishing ecosystem, re-focus the open access debate from a public perspective, and respond to some of the arguments against public open access. Although open access to medical research is not a panacea, removing paywalls and other barriers to public access is essential. The public are critical stakeholders of medical research data.
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.