Dataset Information

With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation.

ABSTRACT: Open biomedical repositories, such as PubMed Central (PMC), are a means to make research discoverable and permanently accessible. Assessing the potential interest of key stakeholders in an Australasia PubMed Central was the objective of this research. The investigation is novel, assisting in the development of open science infrastructure through its systematic analysis of the potential interest in, and viability of a biomedical repository for managing openly accessible research outputs for the Australasia region. The research adopted a qualitative approach based on semi-structured interviews and a focus group. Forty-four stakeholders located throughout Australia and New Zealand participated in the research. Participants expanded upon their experience of PubMed, MEDLINE, PMC and their use of information resources for research and clinical practice. The Evidence Based Healthcare (EBHC) pyramid was the theoretical model adopted to explain open biomedical repository processes. A strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) analysis identified support for exploring membership of an international PMC system, in particular Europe PMC. Lessons learnt from PMC US, Europe PMC and PMC Canada (collectively known as PubMed Central International) informed the investigation. A major strength identified was that PubMed Central International has been able to achieve high levels of compliance way beyond that of most institutional repositories. A great threat faced is overcoming the difficulties of working together with other major world bodies and financially sustaining an Australasia PMC. Improving Australasian biomedical knowledge management processes may be possible from adopting a PMC for retrieving and transferring research, linked to the data underlying the research. This in turn could help put regional research under a brighter spotlight, potentially leading to improvements in research quality. There is an opportunity for a potential Australasia PMC to harvest biomedical research from the National Library of Australia's aggregator database, Trove and work closely with Europe PMC to avoid duplication of effort. Overall, establishment of an Australasia permanent biomedical digital open repository is perceived as important, with significant potential flow-on benefits to healthcare, industry and society.

SUBMITTER: Kruesi LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6386259 | biostudies-other | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation.

Kruesi Lisa M LM Burstein Frada V FV Tanner Kerry J KJ

PloS one 20190222 2

Open biomedical repositories, such as PubMed Central (PMC), are a means to make research discoverable and permanently accessible. Assessing the potential interest of key stakeholders in an Australasia PubMed Central was the objective of this research. The investigation is novel, assisting in the development of open science infrastructure through its systematic analysis of the potential interest in, and viability of a biomedical repository for managing openly accessible research outputs for the A ...[more]

PMID: 30794701

Similar Datasets

Project description:An editorial expression of concern (EEoC) is issued by editors or publishers to draw attention to potential problems in a publication, without itself constituting a retraction or correction. We searched PubMed, PubMed Central (PMC), and Google Scholar to identify EEoCs issued for publications in PubMed and PMC up to 22 August 2016. We also searched the archives of the Retraction Watch blog, some journal and publisher websites, and studies of EEoCs. In addition, we searched for retractions of EEoCs and affected articles in PubMed up to 8 December 2016. We analyzed overall historical trends, as well as reported reasons and subsequent editorial actions related to EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016. After screening 5,076 records, we identified 230 EEoCs that affect 300 publications indexed in PubMed, the earliest issued in 1985. Half of the primary EEoCs were issued between 2014 and 2016 (52%). We found evidence of some EEoCs that had been removed by the publisher without leaving a record and some were not submitted for PubMed or PMC indexing. A minority of publications affected by EEoCs had been retracted by early December 2016 (25%). For the subset of 92 EEoCs issued between August 2014 and August 2016, affecting 99 publications, the rate of retraction was similar (29%). The majority of EEoCs were issued because of concerns with validity of data, methods, or interpretation of the publication (68%), and 31% of cases remained open. Issues with images were raised in 40% of affected publications. Ongoing monitoring after the study identified another 17 EEoCs to year's end in 2016, increasing the number of EEoCs to 247 and publications in PubMed known to be affected by EEoCs to 320 at the end of 2016. EEoCs have been rare publishing events in the biomedical literature, but their use has been increasing. Most have not led to retractions, and many remain unresolved. Lack of prominence and inconsistencies in management of EEoCs reduce the ability of these notices to alert the scientific community to potentially serious problems in publications. EEoCs will be made identifiable in PubMed in 2017.

Dataset Information

With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation.

Publications

With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets