BMJ 2001;322:1-2 ( 6 January )

Editorials

PubMed Central: creating an Aladdin's cave of ideas

We have seen the future, and it works

If you have an apple and I have an apple and if we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW

Starting this week, research articles from the BMJ will be freely available from PubMed Central, the new web based repository that will archive, organise, and distribute peer reviewed reports from biomedical journals (http://pubmedcentral.nih.gov). This will be in addition to their continuing free availability on bmj.com. The BMJ articles join those from 15 other journals. More are expected to follow suit.

PubMed Central's distinguishing characteristic is that it offers the full text of articles, free to users. Think of it as the logical extension of Medline, which offers the bibliographic details of articles and their abstracts. It depends on publishers and societies transferring peer reviewed articles to PubMed Central, which, like Medline, is funded by the US National Institutes of Health.

A phenomenal advance
The BMJ has joined PubMed Central because we agree with Nick Cozzarelli, editor of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (also on PubMed Central), that "free access to the scientific literature would be a phenomenal advance in scientific publishingthe greatest in our lifetime."¹ We want to align ourselves with an initiative which, if successful, will benefit science and so clinical medicine and patient care. From the BMJ 's point of view, we think that better papers might be submitted to us if we offer authors a route to publication both on paper and on PubMed Central. And we think that many people might see our original articles on PubMed Central and then jump to bmj.com to download PDF versions and for accompanying editorials, commentaries, and rapid responsesthereby increasing traffic to our site.

Whether the initiative will succeed is unclear; certainly most scientific publishers are hoping it will fail. But PubMed Central is the first initiative really to take account of how fundamentally the world wide web has changed the landscape of scientific publishing. On the face of it traditional scientific publishers have moved with the times, migrating their paper journals on to the web in their thousands. But most of these are no more than electronic facsimiles of the paper product. Some journals, such as the BMJ, have begun to exploit the properties of the web.² But access controls and the high costs of electronic subscriptions have reproduced the same fragmentation of information that was the despair of the paper world.

What the architects of PubMed Central realised was that the quality control and distribution functions of journals could be uncoupled on the web in a way unthinkable in paper. They recognised that the costs of peer review were relatively lowas most peer reviewers do it for nothingand that the costs of electronic distribution were trivial compared with those of paper, printing, binding, and postage of the paper journal. If, say, US taxpayers would pick up the distribution costs (as they have done the costs of Medline) then publishers could dispense with this function entirely. Free information would mean that libraries could stop subscribing, thereby releasing money back to researchers.

Benefits to authors of publishing in the BMJ Full text articles available free from bmj.com and PubMed Central on day of publication Wide international exposure (120 000 readers of the paper journal, 62 000 readers of 11 local editions, and 100 000 weekly visitors to bmj.com) Press exposure (most quoted medical journal in the British press) High impact factor (5.14) Opportunity for fast track peer review and publication High quality reviewing and technical editing Indexed by Medline and Current Contents Authors retain copyright and share in reprint revenue

Some of that money had previously ended up in publishers' profits, so, unsurprisingly, publishers were loudest in their condemnation of PubMed Central. But when economic forces and the interests of the scientific community converge, publisher opposition may not succeed.

Authors want their work to have as wide a circulation as possible. Previously, they ceded control over their material to publishers as the price for having it published. But as the costs of publication have fallen so they want to renegotiate the contract. The battles over the copyright of scientific articles may, however, be lost almost before they have begun. The proliferation of peer-to-peer networking programs (Napster, Gnutella, FreeNet, and their successors) mean that, technically (though not yet legally) a single subscriber could make a journal's articles available to any other internet user.

Given their aims, authors of scientific articles would probably agree with the suggestion recently quoted by the Economist "that the piracy of intellectual property should be regarded as a form of promotion not theft."³ For publishers, the costs of encryption and legal action to protect their property could exceed the value of the property being protected.⁴ They might be better employed preparing for a world where original articles are free.

From information to knowledge
While most publishers remain wary of PubMed Central, other electronic agencies are springing up to provide the peer review function that journals have traditionally provided (www.biomedcentral.com, http://thescientificworld.com). But the web is changing peer review, too. The usual criteria for acceptance of scientific researchthat it should be new, true, important, and of interest to the readersare over-rigorous for a medium unconstrained by space. We still want what we read to be trueor as methodologically sound as possiblebut if something is deemed interesting by only a handful of readers, what's the problem? BioMedcentral, the main supplier of electronic journals to PubMed Central, is willing to publish any scientifically sound paper.

Sooner or later Pubmed Central or something like it will flourish: the drivers are so strong. It will do the job of disseminating research better and more cheaply than it is done now. What then will be the role of journals? Our judgment is that journals whose main contribution is peer review and distribution of research will disappear. The peer review will be done, as now, by academics, the distribution by PubMed Central or its descendants. The remaining 15% of biomedical journals can survive if they do something valuablesomething, by the iron laws of economics, that people will pay them more to do than it costs the journals to do.

Their value will be around selecting research that is important to their audiences and presenting it in as exciting and as relevant a way as possible; digesting and synthesising research, beginning to turn it from information to knowledge; educating readers, particularly on subjects that are new to them but which will change their lives; setting the agenda and encouraging debate within the community; prompting unfamiliar but deep thoughts; andlike Hollywood films, good novels, or soccerentertaining the customer. If journals cannot add value then they will die, which is right and proper. But if reading them can be a pleasure not a chore then they can survive.

Tony Delamothe, web editor, bmj.com. 
Richard Smith, editor. 

BMJ

---

1.	Cozzarelli NR. A great advance. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/eletters/285/5425/197#EL3
2.	Delamothe T, Smith R. Revel in electronic and paper media. BMJ 2000; 321: 192[Free Full Text].
3.	Duncan E. Thrills and spills. Economist 2000;7 Oct (suppl):14.
4.	Rojas P. Intellectual property. Red Herring 2000; 4 Dec:80-111.

---

© BMJ 2001

Related Articles

Prescribing antibiotics in primary care

Chris Del Mar
BMJ 2007 335: 407-408. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Childhood intelligence and being a vegetarian

Marcus Richards
BMJ 2007 334: 216-217. [Extract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Critical care outreach team's effect on patient outcome: Authors' reply

Carol Ball, Margaret Kirkby, and Susan Williams
BMJ 2004 328: 347. [Extract] [Full Text]

NHS staff must be trained in how to prevent aggression

Charles Essex
BMJ 2001 323: 169. [Extract] [Full Text]

Africa: a continent for the third millennium
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

Africa: a continent for the third millennium
BMJ 2001 322: 0. [Full Text] [PDF]

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Laukka, E. J., MacDonald, S. W. S., Backman, L. (2008). Terminal-Decline Effects for Select Cognitive Tasks after Controlling for Preclinical Dementia. AJGP 16: 355-365 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Hawkins, S S, Griffiths, L J, Cole, T J, Dezateux, C, Law, C, the Millennium Cohort Study Child Health Group, (2008). Regional differences in overweight: an effect of people or place?. Arch. Dis. Child. 93: 407-413 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Economou, A., Nikolaou, A., Theodossiou, I. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health-care utilization: a study of the effects of low income, unemployment and hours of work on the demand for health care in the European Union. Health Serv Manage Res 21: 40-59 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Batty, G D., Deary, I. J, Schoon, I., Gale, C. R (2007). Mental ability across childhood in relation to risk factors for premature mortality in adult life: the 1970 British Cohort Study. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 61: 997-1003 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Miravitlles, M. (2007). Review: Do we need new antibiotics for treating exacerbations of COPD?. Therapeutic Advances in Respiratory Disease 1: 61-76 [Abstract]  
• Rudd, A. G., Hoffman, A., Down, C., Pearson, M., Lowe, D. (2007). Access to stroke care in England, Wales and Northern Ireland: the effect of age, gender and weekend admission. Age Ageing 36: 247-255 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• (2007). Avoiding antibacterial overuse in primary care. DTB 45: 25-29 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Rhee, H., Holditch-Davis, D., Miles, M. S. (2005). Patterns of Physical Symptoms and Relationships With Psychosocial Factors in Adolescents. Psychosom. Med. 67: 1006-1012 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Nekhlyudov, L., Bower, M., Herrinton, L. J., Altschuler, A., Greene, S. M., Rolnick, S., Elmore, J. G., Harris, E. L., Liu, A., Emmons, K. M., Fletcher, S. W., Geiger, A. M. (2005). Women's Decision-Making Roles Regarding Contralateral Prophylactic Mastectomy. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2005: 55-60 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Martin, L. T., Kubzansky, L. D. (2005). Childhood Cognitive Performance and Risk of Mortality: A Prospective Cohort Study of Gifted Individuals. Am J Epidemiol 162: 887-890 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Petersen, S., Bergstrom, E., Brulin, C. (2003). High prevalence of tiredness and pain in young schoolchildren. Scand J Public Health 31: 367-374 [Abstract]  
• Kenter, E., Okkes, I., Oskam, S., Lamberts, H (2003). Tiredness in Dutch family practice. Data on patients complaining of and/or diagnosed with 'tiredness'. Fam Pract 20: 434-440 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Oakeshott, P., Kerry, S., Austin, A., Cappuccio, F. (2003). Is there a role for nurse-led blood pressure management in primary care?. Fam Pract 20: 469-473 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Delamothe, T., Godlee, F., Smith, R. (2003). Scientific literature's open sesame?. BMJ 326: 945-946 [Full text]  
• Brotons, C., Permanyer, G., Pacheco, V., Moral, I., Ribera, A., Cascant, P., Pinar, J. (2003). Prophylactic treatment after myocardial infarction in primary care: how far can we go?. Fam Pract 20: 32-35 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Al-Shahi, R, Sadler, M, Rees, G, Bateman, D (2002). The internet. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 73: 619-628 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• Gulbrandsen, P., Schroeder, T. V., Milerad, J., Nylenna, M. (2002). Paper or Screen, Mother Tongue or English: Which Is Better?: A Randomized Trial. JAMA 287: 2851-2853 [Abstract] [Full text]  
• (2001). Managing stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DTB 39: 81-85 [Abstract] [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

A new philosophy of science

Billaud
bmj.com, 5 Jan 2001 [Full text]

humility and hope

Richard Horton
bmj.com, 5 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Wholehearted endorsement of BMJ initiative

J A McCaul
bmj.com, 9 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Real quality of biomedical scientific information

Jan W Schoones
bmj.com, 10 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Congratulations and best wishes

Mario López-Llera
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Free internet access will help research in the developing world

Daniel Munday
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Authors and readers or customers?

Mike Clark
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Comment is free, facts are sacred.

John Hopkins
bmj.com, 12 Jan 2001 [Full text]

BMJ Publishing Group journals are free to those in the developing world

Richard Smith
bmj.com, 13 Jan 2001 [Full text]

PubMed initiative, internet hoaxes and share "ramping"

Tom Neal
bmj.com, 15 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Postponing the end of science

Johannes Borgstein
bmj.com, 18 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Untitled

Anne Marie Talsky
bmj.com, 19 Jan 2001 [Full text]

Public Library of Science: Support Unrestricted Access to Scientific Publications

Michael Eisen
bmj.com, 14 Feb 2001 [Full text]

Is printed information still necessary?

Simona di Mario
bmj.com, 30 Mar 2001 [Full text]