165x Filetype PDF File size 0.44 MB Source: jnm.snmjournals.org
EDITORIALS PubMed Central: The JNM Perspective tion in JNM any manuscript that has scripts, news columns, editorials, in JLn May 1999, Dr. Harold Varmus of appeared on PubMed Central. vited commentaries, educational the National Institutes of Health (NIH) The primary concern that the SNM articles, letters to the editor) in each proposed a web-based repository for and I have regarding PubMed Central issue. Grouping only the scientific ar the electronic distribution of primary is that it does not make sense to give ticles from every journal together in 1 research content in the life sciences. away the scientific information that is giant archive may aid in research ef This public database, now called gathered and nurtured by the journals. forts, but such a repository negates the PubMed Central, began this past winter One very significant point that was lost importance of the milieu that brought with the posting of 1 journal (the on the developers of PubMed Central is those articles to light. Siphoning off the November issue of Molecular Biology that there are very legitimate reasons original investigations that rose from of the Cell). In March 2000, the Pro why professional societies have been that complex milieu can only weaken ceedings of the National Academy of formed in virtually every specialty of the professional society that originally Sciences of the United States of America science and medicine. Instead of trying published them. As with most issues, it also started posting to PubMed Central. to be all things to all people, societies is a matter of economics; yet it is also a Although the intent of this project is to (and their resulting publications) offer question of maintaining the viability of eventually have the scientific offerings information and services that specifi scientific and medical organizations. of all periodicals available in 1 central cally fit the needs of individuals in that Professional society membership dues location, as of May 2000 only 5 of the particular field. The Lancet published pay for journals, which, in turn, reflect "next wave" of 12 additional journals an editorial last year that makes an current issues and promote advances in that were promised have yet made it to insightful point: "For medical journal that particular field. Lessening the im the Web. Despite a rather inauspicious readers, PubMed Central would be a pact and viability of those journals will beginning, this vast proposal to ar bore. Readers do not subscribe to a have obvious and deleterious effects on chive, organize, and distribute every database. They subscribe to read the the societies themselves. peer-reviewed article in the scientific mix of material that editors put before The second point that needs to be literature seems, at first, to be an ex them in each issue: reviews and opin emphasized is that I will not consider tremely worthy endeavor. However, a ion, editorials and commentaries, news, for publication in JNM any report that closer look at Varmus's proposal sug series, general interest material, to has been posted on PubMed Central. gests that PubMed Central's role as an gether with carefully reviewed, edited, This needs to be made clear because everyman's database is actually more and presented primary research" (2). the proposal for this archive includes excessive than impressive in its scope All of these components offer a de not only previously published peer- U). tailed scope of what is happening in reviewed articles but studies that have PubMed Central is primarily in that specialty at that particular time. not gone through this fundamental pro tended to be an archive of scientific However, according to Varmus, who cess. The NIH has announced that reports recently published by scientific was director of the NIH when PubMed these will be screened by the organiza and medical journals. The idea is that Central was proposed and during pre tions that submit them and identified as liminary development, established jour non-peer-reviewed articles. (Several publishers will provide all original ar nals would retain their appeal because troubling issues that arise regarding the ticles from each issue at a time chosen of their news coverage and commen inclusion of these reports follow this by each publisher. Such an archive is tary on policy issues, none of which paragraph.) Regardless of their pedi seen by some as an improved format would be incorporated into PubMed gree for inclusion in PubMed Central, I for the dissemination of clinical and Central (3). cannot consider them for publication in basic science research—not only will it What Varmus failed to realize is that JNM simply because that inclusion be free from the time and financial the scientific content of society jour means that they have been previously constraints of printing, but all informa nals is decidedly not a separate entity published. This policy is based on our tion will be free and open to anyone from the rest of the periodical. Publica adherence to the Uniform Require with Internet access. However, the JNM, tions such as JNM have the impact that ments for Manuscripts Submitted to like many major scientific publishers they do on their readers and the medi BiomédicalJournals (4). and professional societies, is declining cal community at large because they When PubMed Central was first pro to participate in PubMed Central. In contain pertinent information in a vari posed, the emphasis was on rapidly addition, I will not consider for publica ety of forms (e.g., original manu posting scientific reports in an effort to PUBMEDCENTRAL•Sandier 1123 disseminate this information as quickly Another troubling issue is Varmus's for each issue through 1999 in archive as possible. Perhaps the original justifi proposal that the costs associated with form and the full text of Newsline in a cation of including non-peer-reviewed publication should shift from readers to portable document format (PDF). In articles was that the peer-review pro authors (6). There would be only negli the near future, we will follow the lead cess would slow down the sharing of gible costs for articles provided by of other publishers and organizations such studies. However, now that established journals, because these by providing full text on line to mem PubMed Central only expects publish would already be in the proper format bers and subscribers. This will include ers to provide articles some time after for posting on the archive. The shifting the ability of researchers to link to publication, that argument for the inclu of expenses would apply primarily to many of the reference citations directly sion of non-peer-reviewed reports no the electronic archiving of the non- from the original article and thereby longer holds. Again, the editorial in peer-reviewed reports. As the editor of thoroughly examine a particular article The Lancet echoes one of the major a medical/scientific journal, I find it on the Web with ease. The on-line concerns of scientific and medical pro problematic to accept that authors of servers that would be used for this fessional societies: "One legitimate non-peer-reviewed manuscripts could purpose have been in operation for anxiety is that doctors and the public pay to have these articles distributed several years; therefore, the technology might have access to non-peer-re globally on a Web site that has any involved has been proven. On the other viewed, and therefore unreliable, re affiliation with the U.S. Government. hand, the technological and administra search findings" (2). However, this was Although the NIH has made it clear tive logistics of such a colossal en followed by the reasoning that the that neither it nor any governmental deavor as PubMed Central are truly Internet is already full of 'junk science' agency endorses PubMed Central and daunting; in fact, skepticism exists as and that most physicians are becoming that its involvement is only to facilitate to how such a task could be accom familiar with research methods (2); the archiving, it is difficult for many plished (7). thus, all clinical and basic scientists individuals and groups not to infer a The greatest asset of the PubMed should be able to analyze scientific connection. Central concept is the near immediate papers on any possible topic and deter Finally, any article on PubMed Cen universal access of material. Perhaps, mine for themselves whether the ar tral that did not originally appear in a some day, that will be a possibility. ticles have merit. This is a rather naive medical or scientific journal may not be However, as proposed and imple view that implies that all medical and adequately scrutinized for conflict of mented, PubMed Central cannot offer science professionals have the time and interest between the authors and compa the assurances necessary to maintain ability to familiarize themselves with nies who funded the studies. Would all the integrity of JNM should it partici every aspect of every scientific field. organizations that submit such reports pate in this endeavor. Therefore, we In addition to somehow managing to for posting on PubMed Central be graciously decline. catalogue and offer every article pro responsible, as is JNM, for checking vided by scientific journals and those for such conflicts? (If so, and if these Martin P.Sandier screened but not strictly peer-reviewed, groups are also responsible for screen Editor-in-Chief PubMed Central is also seen as a ing manuscripts, are the organizations REFERENCES possible information source for those prepared for the additional administra 1. Marshall E. Varmus circulates proposal for NIH- outside science and medicine. How tive support that such processes re backed online venture. Science. 1999:284:718. ever, the presence of non-peer-re quire?) In a similar vein, the lack of a 2. The Lancet. NIH E-biomed proposal: a welcome viewed articles prompted the Council true peer-review process carried out jolt [editorial]. Lancet. 1999:353:1985. within the paper's field of clinical prac 3. Greenberg DS. National Institutes of Health moves of Science Editors (a professional orga ahead with "PubMed Central." Lancet. I999;354: nization of scientific editors, authors, tice or research could weaken the requi 1009-1012. librarians, and publishing professionals site evaluation of a study's ethical 4. International Committee of Medical Journal Edi aimed at improving communication in standards. tors. Uniform requirements for manuscripts submit ted to biomédicaljournals. JAMA. 1997:227:927- the life sciences) to suggest to Varmus My comments up to this point have 934. that if PubMed Central is accessible to dealt with why JNM is not participating 5. PubMed Central: an NIH-operated site for elec the lay public, an explanation of the in or accepting manuscripts posted on tronic distribution of life sciences research reports. peer-review process should also be PubMed Central. However, I consider Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/ about/faq.html. Accessed: May 26. 2000. attached to this section (5). Thus, the it vitally important that we also inform 6. Mossman BV. CBE's response to NIH Director's public must develop their analytical the readers of JNM as to what we are E-Biomed proposal. Available at: http://www.coun- skills to superhuman levels so that doing now and intend to implement in cilscienceeditors.org/services_notices.php3. Ac cessed: May 26, 2000. they, too, can discern which articles are the future to further the dissemination 7. Relman AS. The NIH "E-biomed" proposal—a worth their time investigating and which of information. Currently, we have ar potential threat to the evaluation and orderly dissemi nation of new clinical studies (editoriali. N Engl J are not. ticle abstracts and the table of contents MeJ. 1999:340:1828-1829. 1124 THEJOURNALOFNUCLEARMEDICINE•Vol. 41 •No. 7 •July 2000
no reviews yet
Please Login to review.