Cargando…

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

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 dev...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kruesi, Lisa M., Burstein, Frada V., Tanner, Kerry J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30794701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212843
_version_ 1783397347080798208
author Kruesi, Lisa M.
Burstein, Frada V.
Tanner, Kerry J.
author_facet Kruesi, Lisa M.
Burstein, Frada V.
Tanner, Kerry J.
author_sort Kruesi, Lisa M.
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6386259
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63862592019-03-09 With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation Kruesi, Lisa M. Burstein, Frada V. Tanner, Kerry J. PLoS One Research Article 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. Public Library of Science 2019-02-22 /pmc/articles/PMC6386259/ /pubmed/30794701 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212843 Text en © 2019 Kruesi et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Kruesi, Lisa M.
Burstein, Frada V.
Tanner, Kerry J.
With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title_full With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title_fullStr With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title_full_unstemmed With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title_short With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation
title_sort with open science gaining traction, do we need an australasia pubmed central (pmc)? a qualitative investigation
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6386259/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30794701
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0212843
work_keys_str_mv AT kruesilisam withopensciencegainingtractiondoweneedanaustralasiapubmedcentralpmcaqualitativeinvestigation
AT bursteinfradav withopensciencegainingtractiondoweneedanaustralasiapubmedcentralpmcaqualitativeinvestigation
AT tannerkerryj withopensciencegainingtractiondoweneedanaustralasiapubmedcentralpmcaqualitativeinvestigation