PubMed Central: authors' attitudes (October 1999)

In October 1999, we emailed the corresponding authors of the last 100 original articles published in the BMJ, Lancet, and New England Journal of Medicine.

The email read:

"PubMed Central, NIH's web based repository of original research in the life sciences, will 'go live' in January. It will provide free access to articles that existing journals, new journals, and reputable scientific organisations have submitted to it.

Despite its potential benefits to the scientific community, the initiative has thrown many existing journals into turmoil as they wonder how to compensate for lost subscriptions.

At the BMJ we want to hear what authors have to say about the proposal before deciding our policy.

Could we therefore have your response to a single question:

When it comes to deciding where to submit your articles, how important will a journal's participation in PubMed Central be?

Very important

Important

Neither important nor unimportant

Unimportant

Very unimportant

As well as helping us, your response may also inform the policies of journals other than the BMJ."

Overall response rate: 70/300 (23%)

BMJ - 100 email sent/38 replies

Very important - 11

Important - 11

Neither important nor unimportant - 9

Unimportant - 5

Very unimportant - 2

Lancet - 100 email sent/15 replies

Very important - 6

Important - 2

Neither important nor unimportant - 6

Unimportant - 1

Very unimportant - 0

NEJM - 100 email sent/17 replies

Very important - 4

Important - 4

Neither important nor unimportant - 3

Unimportant 2

Very unimportant - 4