 |
 |
Hi, it is a real shame that Cochrane is behind a paywall for people in rich countries (it is freely available in low income countries). It strikes me that key resources like Cochrane should be publicly funded and ideally easily available via PMC. The cost would be trivial in the grand scheme of things. It sounds from Tom and Ahmed's comments as if, once we have open data, we then need to campaign for common standards for the formatting of this data to make re-analysis and meta-analysis by independent researchers more feasible. With best wishes, Tom On 24 October 2013 09:23, Trish Groves <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi Tom > Yes, journals send loads of content to PMC. See these FAQs for more > details: > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/faq/ > > I think you're saying that PMC should become a journal. My point was that > it's already a long way down that path, and my question was - is that an > entirely good thing? > The Cochrane Library is a journal now, with an editor, publisher, a > business model and a paywall. Is that what everyone wanted from the > Cochrane Collaboration? > If university presses get going on a big scale (see end of my last > email) they're going to need staff and resources and we'll be back to > square one. > > I clearly have a whopping conflict of interest as head of research at one > long-established journal and editor in chief of a new one, but I do think > we still need professional journals that provide high quality, transparent > peer review; open access publication of research; good quality premoderated > commenting/postpublication review, and great debate. > > You've posed several other important questions, which I'll try to answer > briefly: > * I don't know what the future will hold for academic journals > > * for me the biggest point is that the primacy of the research paper is, > rightly, on its way out. All the outputs of a study matter equally - the > protocol (and al its versions); the ethics approval/consent documents; the > study registration details; the rationale for the study - from the > viewpoint of the investigators and, increasingly, of practitioners and > patients; the full details of any interventions/usual care/control > conditions; the baseline results; the summary results of the primary > outcome(s) and any harms - reported in journal papers and in > registries; ditto for secondary outcomes, with full clarity about which > were prespecified; the patient level/raw anonymised data; the metadata; the > peer reviewer's and editors' comments; the postpublication review; and - > for all of this, everyone's competing interests and funding details and the > role of funders in the work. > > * journals can and should be working to make all this information > available in forms that can be reused, reanalysed, replicated. Some of us > are on the case > > * many journals now have a variety of funding streams. Here are the BMJ's: > http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj (though I see it needs updating, as it > doesn't mention open access article publishing fees for research - we'll > add that today!) > > Best wishes > Trish > > > On Thursday, 24 October 2013, Tom Yates wrote: > >> >> Hi Trish, >> >> Interesting debate! Are journals what feeds PMC? I would have thought it >> is fed by academics and funding bodies. In the UK, most funders (Wellcome, >> MRC, etc) and many universities are willing to pay open access fees, >> meaning libraries don't need to spend a fortune on subscriptions. Most >> academics peer review articles for free. PMC presumably can handle the type >> setting. >> >> Given the detrimental effect that information from pharmaceutical >> companies has on prescribing behaviour, I am pretty happy with traffic >> being diverted away from adverts for new diabetes drugs, etc. I also see >> little argument in favour of the debate being fragmented across multiple >> websites - PMC seems the right place for it to happen. >> >> What do you think the future of the academic journal is in this brave new >> world? What functions should be protected and which can be delegated? Is >> there a funding model that does not require revenue from pharmaceutical >> advertising and revenue from reprints, which create perverse incentives to >> publish industry trials with 'positive' findings? >> >> These are really important issues. >> >> Best wishes, >> Tom >> >> >> >> On 24 October 2013 07:19, Trish Groves <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Hilda >>> It's a great idea. So good that we've been doing it for 15 years at the >>> BMJ. >>> >>> But, at the risk of sounding churlish, I want to point out that there's >>> a potential downside. >>> Increasingly, PMC is biting the hand that feeds it, by: >>> >>> * taking a ton of web traffic away from journals ( >>> http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/04/04/pubmed-central-reduces-publisher-traffic-study-shows/) - >>> this threatens journals' viability. Libraries and advertisers rely heavily >>> on journal usage data to make decisions about where to spend their money, >>> and increasingly authors will use almetrics to decide where to submit their >>> work >>> >>> * launching PubMed Reader ( >>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/pubreader/), which makes it >>> really hard for readers to link to the original journal article - the link >>> is deeply buried and very hard to find >>> >>> * competing head on with open access journals and journals that send >>> paywalled content direct to PubMed on publication without delay - why would >>> anyone bother to go to the journal if they can get the articles immediately >>> from PubMed? >>> >>> * providing journal-type services such as postpublication commenting, >>> depleting journals' ability to foster debate and engage >>> their community. Of course, lots of debate already happens elsewhere, via >>> blogs and social media, and that's great. But journal postpublication >>> debate and review can work really well, as we've shown at the BMJ with the >>> 902,500 Rapid Responses we've posted since 1998 ( >>> http://www.bmj.com/comment/rapid-responses). >>> >>> PMC's done great service to medicine, and it has relied enormously on >>> the support and goodwill of journals. But is its mission now creeping too >>> far in a direction that could ultimately threaten journals' and, in >>> time, its own viability? And does PMC really want to deter journals >>> from doing the right thing? >>> >>> I realise this sounds like a whinge, but I do think it's one worth >>> considering. And it's not just an issue for commercial publishers journals: >>> academic institutions are moving towards launching house >>> journals/university presses fed by their open access content that they will >>> get peer reviewed and then rated by altmetrics ( >>> http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2013/10/21/institutional-repositories-present-future/). >>> They may need to worry about PMC's journalisation too. >>> >>> Best wishes >>> Trish >>> >>> >>> On Thursday, 24 October 2013, Anoop B wrote: >>> >>> Great news and nice article, Hilda. Thanks for sharing! >>> >>> Would like to see a facebook and twitter share link on pubmed oneday. >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Hilda Bastian <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >>> >>> G'day! >>> >>> We now have a beta pilot version of a commenting system more widely open >>> for use (but still only accessible & visible to registered participants). >>> It's an exciting development, I believe, although of course I'm biased (I'm >>> quite intensively involved with this project). I blogged about it here at >>> Scientific American: >>> >>> >>> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/absolutely-maybe/2013/10/22/science-buzz-and-criticism-gets-a-powerful-boost/ >>> >>> It would be wonderful if others spread the word (and let me know if you >>> blog, we're reading as much of what people say as we can), and started >>> encouraging people to use it. If it's to make a real difference and >>> continue beyond a pilot, it needs to be used a lot. Was delighted to see a >>> comment go up recently from Paul Glasziou's journal club - what a great >>> idea! >>> >>> I'd love to hear people's thoughts on this: what it could/should be >>> like, what concerns people might have. >>> >>> It's complicated at the moment, to get started. We have FAQs here: >>> >>> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/faq/> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> BMJ advances healthcare worldwide by sharing knowledge and expertise to >>> improve experiences, outcomes and value. This email and any attachments are >>> confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it >>> and kindly notify us. If the email contains personal views then BMJ accepts >>> no responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this >>> email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ accepts no liability for >>> any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by BMJ may be >>> monitored for size, traffic, distribution and content. BMJ Publishing Group >>> Limited trading as BMJ. A private limited company, registered in England >>> and Wales under registration number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, >>> Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >> >> > > -- > Dr Trish Groves > Deputy Editor, BMJ > *& Editor-in-chief, BMJ Open* > * > * > * BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR* > T: 020 7383 6018 > E: [log in to unmask] > * W: bmj.com/company* > twitter@trished > pinterest.com/trishedpin > > I'm trying to cut down on emails. Please forgive me: * if my message > appears only in the header (finishing with ".Ends"); I hope this will save > you clicking and reading time * if the header includes suggestions to act > by a deadline: at least then you'll know why I'm emailing you and can > decide quickly whether to respond * if I don't reply to emails that are 1) > for info only 2) are ccing me 3) thanking me for my reply * if my email is > brief with details in an attachment: this should make it easier to save, > delete, edit, or share. Thanks > > > ------------------------------ > BMJ advances healthcare worldwide by sharing knowledge and expertise to > improve experiences, outcomes and value. This email and any attachments are > confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it > and kindly notify us. If the email contains personal views then BMJ accepts > no responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this > email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ accepts no liability for > any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by BMJ may be > monitored for size, traffic, distribution and content. BMJ Publishing Group > Limited trading as BMJ. A private limited company, registered in England > and Wales under registration number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, > Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK. > ------------------------------ >