Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services
Keywords:PubMed, MEDLINE, PubMed Central, Scholarly Communications, Predatory Publishers
Objective: PubMed’s provision of MEDLINE and other National Library of Medicine (NLM) resources has made it one of the most widely accessible biomedical resources globally. The growth of PubMed Central (PMC) and public access mandates have affected PubMed’s composition. The authors tested recent claims that content in PMC is of low quality and affects PubMed’s reliability, while exploring PubMed’s role in the current scholarly communications landscape.
Methods: The percentage of MEDLINE-indexed records was assessed in PubMed and various subsets of records from PMC. Data were retrieved via the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) interface, and follow-up interviews with a PMC external reviewer and staff at NLM were conducted.
Results: Almost all PubMed content (91%) is indexed in MEDLINE; however, since the launch of PMC, the percentage of PubMed records indexed in MEDLINE has slowly decreased. This trend is the result of an increase in PMC content from journals that are not indexed in MEDLINE and not a result of author manuscripts submitted to PMC in compliance with public access policies. Author manuscripts in PMC continue to be published in MEDLINE-indexed journals at a high rate (85%). The interviewees clarified the difference between the sources, with MEDLINE serving as a highly selective index of journals in biomedical literature and PMC serving as an open archive of quality biomedical and life sciences literature and a repository of funded research.
Conclusion: The differing scopes of PMC and MEDLINE will likely continue to affect their overlap; however, quality control exists in the maintenance and facilitation of both resources, and funding from major grantors is a major component of quality assurance in PMC.
This article has been approved for the Medical Library Association’s Independent Reading Program.
Marill JL. Journal selection at the National Library of Medicine: a new process for challenging times. Technicalities [Internet]. 2016 Jul/Aug;36(4):1–5 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/staffpubs/lo/TECH_V36_N4_JulAug16_Marill.pdf>.
De Groote SL, Shultz M, Blecic DD. Information-seeking behavior and the use of online resources: a snapshot of current health sciences faculty. J Med Libr Assoc. 2014 Jul;102(3):169–76. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.102.3.006.
Cogdill KW, Friedman CP, Jenkins CG, Mays B, Sharp MC. Information needs and information seeking in community medical education. Acad Med. 2000 May;75(5):484–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00001888-200005000-00020.
Quesenberry AC, Oelschlegel S, Earl M, Leonard K, Vaughn CJ. The impact of library resources and services on the scholarly activity of medical faculty and residents. Med Ref Serv Q. 2016 Jul–Sep; 5(3):259–65. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02763869.2016.1189778.
Dunn K, Marshall JG, Wells AL, Backus JEB. Examining the role of MEDLINE as a patient care information resource: an analysis of data from the Value of Libraries study. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Oct;105(4):336–46. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.87.
Ketchum AM. The research life cycle and the health sciences librarian: responding to change in scholarly communication. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Jan;105(1):80–3. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.110.
Mears K, Bandy SL. Investigating the need for scholarly communications positions in Association of Academic Health Sciences Libraries member institutions. J Med Libr Assoc. 2017 Apr;105(2):145–9. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2017.208.
National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE®: description of the database [Internet]. The Library; 2004 [cited 26 Oct 2017]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html>.
Lindberg DAB. Internet access to the National Library of Medicine. Eff Clin Pract. 2000 Sep/Oct;4:256–60 [cited 26 Oct 2017]. <http://ecp.acponline.org/sepoct00/nlm.htm>.
Canese K, Weis S. PubMed: the bibliographic database. In: The NCBI handbook [Internet]. 2nd ed. Bethesda, MD: National Center for Biotechnology Information (US); 9 Oct 2002 [updated 20 Mar 2013; cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153385>.
National Library of Medicine. Free web-based access to NLM databases. NLM Tech Bull [Internet]. 1997 May–Jun;296 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/mj97/mj97_web.html>.
Canese K. PubMed celebrates its 10th anniversary! NLM Tech Bull [Internet]. 2006 Sep–Oct;(352):e5 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/so06/so06_pm_10.html>.
National Library of Medicine. PubMed®: MEDLINE® retrieval on the World Wide Web [Internet]. The Library; 2017 [cited 18 Mar 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pubmed.html>.
National Library of Medicine. FAQ: journal selection for MEDLINE® indexing at NLM [Internet]. The Library; 2017 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/j_sel_faq.html>.
National Library of Medicine. PMC overview [Internet]. The Library; 2011 [cited 26 Oct 2017]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/>.
Funk K, Stanger R, Eannarino J, Topper L, Majewski K. PubMed journal selection and the changing landscape of scholarly communication [Internet]. National Library of Medicine; 6 Oct 2017 [cited 26 Oct 2017]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/disted/video/selection.html>.
Minter C. Personal communication with Melanie Modlin (Deputy Director/Public Liaison Officer, National Library of Medicine). 2 Jan 2018.
National Library of Medicine. MEDLINE journal selection [Internet]. The Library; 2017 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/lstrc/jsel.html>.
National Institutes of Health. Public access policy details [Internet]. The Institutes; 2016 [cited 1 Jan 2018]. <https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm>.
US Congress. Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009 [Internet]. The Congress; 2009 [cited 1 Jan 2018]. <https://www.congress.gov/111/plaws/publ8/PLAW-111publ8.pdf>.
National Library of Medicine. PMC and research funder policies [Internet]. The Library; 2018 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access>.
National Library of Medicine. PMC FAQs [Internet]. The Library; 2015 [cited 14 Nov 2017]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/faq/>.
National Library of Medicine. PMC policies [Internet]. The Library [cited 9 Jul 2018]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/guidelines/>.
National Library of Medicine. The collection development policy of the NLM. In: Collection development manual of the National Library of Medicine [Internet]. 4th ed. Bethesda, MD: The Library, National Institutes of Health, US Department of Health and Human Services; 2004 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <http://www.nlm.nih.gov/tsd/acquisitions/cdm/>.
Minter CIJ, Ossom Williamson P. Personal communication with Joyce Backus (Associate Director for Library Operations, National Library of Medicine) and Kathryn Funk (Program Specialist for PubMed Central, National Library of Medicine). 2 Jan 2018.
Minter CIJ, Ossom Williamson P. Personal communication with Laurey Steinke (Assistant Professor of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, University of Nebraska Medical Center). 11 Dec 2017.
Coleman J. NLM to discontinue PubMed Health on October 31, 2018 [Internet]. NLM Tech Bull [Internet]. 2018 May–Jun;(422):e3 [cited 29 Oct 2017]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/mj18/mj18_pmh_discontinue.html>.
National Library of Medicine. About MedlinePlus [Internet]. The Library; 2017 [cited 29 Oct 2017]. <https://medlineplus.gov/aboutmedlineplus.html>.
Holdren J. Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: increasing access to the results of federally funded scientific research [Internet]. Office of Science and Technology Policy; 22 Feb 2013 [cited 18 Mar 2018]. <https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/ostp_public_access_memo_2013.pdf>.
McCann TV, Polacsek M. False gold: safely navigating open access publishing to avoid predatory publishers and journals. J Adv Nurs. 2018 Apr;74(4):809–17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jan.13483.
Lake L; Federal Trade Commission. Academics and scientists: beware of predatory journal publishers [Internet]. The Commission; 26 Aug 2016 [cited 26 Oct 2017]. <https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/blog/2016/08/academics-and-scientists-beware-predatory-journal-publishers>.
National Institutes of Health. Statement on article publication resulting from NIH funded research. Notice number: NOT-OD-18-011 [Internet]. The Institutes; 3 Nov 2017 [cited 20 Dec 2017]. <https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-18-011.html>.
Blank D, Buchweitz C, Procianoy RS. Impact of SciELO and MEDLINE indexing on submissions to Jornal de Pediatria. J Pediatr. 2005 Nov/Dec;81(6):431–4. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2223/JPED.1414.
Maggio LA, Moorhead LL, Willinsky JM. Qualitative study of physicians’ varied uses of biomedical research in the USA. BMJ Open. 2016;6(11):e012846. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012846.
Chua S, Qureshi AM, Krishnan V, Pai DR, Kamal LB, Gunasegaran S, Afzal MZ, Ambawatta L, Gan JY, Kew PY, Winn T, Sood S. The impact factor of an open access journal does not contribute to an article’s citations. F1000Research. 2017;6:208. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.10892.1.
Hua F, Sun H, Walsh T, Glenny AM, Worthington H. Open access to journal articles in oncology: current situation and citation impact. Ann Oncol. 2017 Oct 1;28(10):2612–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdx398.
Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. The surge of predatory open-access in neurosciences and neurology. Neurosci. 2017 Jun 14;20:166–73. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.04.014
Manca A, Martinez G, Cugusi L, Dragone D, Mercuro G, Deriu F. Predatory open access in rehabilitation. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2017 May;98(5):1051–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apmr.2017.01.002
Anderson K. A confusion of journals — what is PubMed now? Scholarly Kitchen [Internet]. 7 Sep 2017 [cited 29 Oct 2017]. <https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/09/07/confusion-journals-pubmed-now/>.
Kraft M. PubMed’s backdoor makes me question quality. Krafty Librarian [Internet]. 15 Jun 2017 [cited 29 Oct 2017]. <http://www.kraftylibrarian.com/pubmeds-backdoor-makes-me-question-quality>.
Berger M, Cirasella J. Beyond Beall’s List: better understanding predatory publishers. Coll Res Libr News. 2015 Mar;76(3):132–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5860/crln.76.3.9277.
Smith C, Afshar AS. Wolf in the fold: quality of databases and digital repositories post-Beall’s List [Internet]. Presented at MLA ’18, 118th MLA Annual Meeting; Atlanta, GA; 21 May 2018 [cited 15 Jun 2018]. <https://www.eventscribe.com/2018/MLA/fsPopup.asp?Mode=presInfo&PresentationID=367225>.
National Center for Biotechnology Information. PubMed help: subset [Internet]. The Center; 2017 Nov 27 [cited 31 Dec 2017]. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK3827/#pubmedhelp.Subset_SB>.
National Library of Medicine. Index section [Internet]. The Library; 8 Aug 2016 [cited 11 Jan 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/indexhome.html>.
National Library of Medicine. Indexing initiative [Internet]. The Library; 29 Sep 2016 [cited 11 Jan 2018]. <https://ii.nlm.nih.gov/MTI/index.shtml>.
Marchitelli A, Galimberti P, Bollini A, Mitchell D. Helping journals to improve their publishing standards: a data analysis of DOAJ new criteria effects. Italian J Libr Arch Inf Sci. 2017;8(1):1–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4403/jlis.it-12052.
Shen C, Björk BC. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015 Oct 1;13:230. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0469-2.
Nelson N, Huffman J. Predatory journals in library databases: how much should we worry? Ser Libr. 2015;69(2):169–92. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0361526x.2015.1080782 .
Marill J. Catalog display changes for journal titles not in the NLM collection. NLM Tech Bull [Internet]. 2018 Jan–Feb;(420):e1 [cited 26 Oct 2018]. <https://www.nlm.nih.gov/pubs/techbull/jf18/jf18_noc_serials_display_change.html>.
Hudson-Barr D. How to read a research article. J Spec Pediatr Nurs. 2004 Apr–Jun;9(2):70–2. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-145X.2004.00070.x.
Hart DL, Poston II WR, Perry JF. Critically reading a research article. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 1980;2(2):72–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2519/jospt.19184.108.40.206.
Vickers A. Critical appraisal: how to read a clinical research paper. Complement Ther Med. 1995 Jul;3(3):158–66. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0965-2299(95)80057-3.