It’s a rough estimate we can find on openbiomed.info but the findings results tend into extremes: In searching PMC (free full-text archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. (NIH/NLM)) “Jason” asked what proportion of annual NIH funded research articles from any one journal end up on PMC.
These are his findings:
PMC Deposits as a Percentage of 2009 Article Publishing in Select Journals
Table from biomed.info:
|JOURNAL||2009 Articles (SCImago)||2009 PMC Articles||PMC Percentage (%)|
|New England Journal of Medicine||1817||81||4%|
|Trends in Molecular Medicine||60||11||18%|
|Journal of Clinical Oncology||1290||288||22%|
Especially the three very influental journals New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and The Lancet come off badly!
What’s wrong with the guys on their editorial boards? Is it a question of culture in the different medical ‘disciplines’? Is it a question of arrogance?
It would be interesting to go into more details, to ask, what disciplines in these general medical journals perform worst, to join their conferences and to teach them that they are wrong if they think, that PMC is a “Post Marketing Commitment” for medicines…
Hey, this is medical research, not theoretical astrophysics. So, give back the research results, the taxpayers in your country have funded!