Advancing scholarly publishing through open access biomedical repositories: A knowledge management perspective

Abstract

Scholarly publishing has undergone major changes over the past 50 years. Funder mandates and organisational reporting obligations have heralded the creation of open access repositories, such as institutional and subject repositories. This research draws upon the US PubMed Central (PMC) and Europe PMC, also known as PMC International, as a role model to inform the concept and opportunity for an Australasia open access biomedical repository. PMC International is a leader in making citations and research output, which link to research data, Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable (FAIR). As repositories approach two decades of development, this paper reports on the potential for an Australasia open access biomedical repository through a knowledge management lens and explores the opportunities for future open access biomedical repositories.

Keywords

Australasia Europe PMC evidence-based healthcare model knowledge management open access biomedical repositories open science PMC PMC international PubMed Central scholarly publishing

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alavi

Leidner

(2001) Review: Knowledge management and knowledge management systems: Conceptual foundations and research issues. MIS Quarterly 25(1): 107–136.

AmeliCA (2019) About AmeliCA? Available at: http://www.amelica.org/en/index.php/que-es-ameli/ (accessed 3 March 2019).

Argote

Ingram

(2000) Knowledge transfer: A basis for competitive advantage in firms. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 82(1): 150–169.

Armbruster

Romary

(2009) Comparing repository types: Challenges and barriers for subject-based repositories, research repositories, national repository systems and institutional repositories in serving scholarly communication. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1506905 (accessed 10 March 2019).

Australian Government Productivity Commission (2015) Efficiency in health. Productivity Commission Research Paper. Available at: www.pc.gov.au/research/completed/efficiency-health/efficiency-health.pdf (accessed 13 January 2019).

Australian Research Council (2013) In: ARC Open Access Policy Version 2017.1. Available at: http://www.arc.gov.au/arc-open-access-policy (accessed 10 March 2019).

Barbour

(2017) The role of the Australasian Open Access Strategy Group in supporting OA initiatives in the Australasian region. In: Open Repositories 2017, Brisbane, Australia. Available at: https://www.openrepositories.org/ (accessed 29 June 2017).

Barbour

(2018) Accessing the outputs of research: Will ‘traditional peer reviewed publication’ become a relic of the past? In: National Health and Medical Research Council, The REWARD Alliance. Seventh annual NHMRC symposium on research translation: Ensuring value in research, Sydney, Australia, 27–28 November 2018. Available at: https://vimeo.com/album/5683547 (accessed 10 March 2019).

Becerra-Fernandez

Sabherwal

(2015) Knowledge Management: Systems and Processes. New York: Ebooks, Corporation.

10.

Björk

(2014) Open access subject repositories: An overview. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(4): 698–706.

11.

Brooks

(2011) Explainer: Why Australia needs Advanced Health Research Centres. The Conversation. Available at: https://theconversation.com/explainer-why-australia-needs-advanced-health-research-centres-1139 (accessed 10 March 2019).

12.

Budapest Open Access Initiative. (2002) Budapest Open Access Initiative. Available at: http://www.soros.org/openaccess/ (accessed 14 January 2018).

13.

cOAlition

(2019) ‘Plan S’ and ‘cOAlition S’: Accelerating the transition to full and immediate open access to scientific publications. Available at: https://www.coalition-s.org/ (accessed 13 January 2019).

14.

Council of Australian University Librarians (2017) Current State of Open Access: Briefing Paper for Universities Australia (UA) Deputy Vice-Chancellors Research Committee: Agenda item 3154.a. CAUL Executive Meeting 2017/6: 1–10.

15.

Council of Australian University Librarians and Australasian Open Access Strategy Group (2018) Joint statement on the importance of Open Scholarship. Available at: https://www.caul.edu.au/sites/default/files/documents/media/open-scholarship2018joint-statement.pdf (accessed 18 January 2019).

16.

Cullen

Chawner

(2011) Institutional repositories, open access, and scholarly communication: A study of conflicting paradigms. Journal of Academic Librarianship 37(6): 460–470.

17.

Dizikes

(2016) MIT task force releases preliminary ‘Future of Libraries’ report. MIT News, 24 October. Available at: http://news.mit.edu/2016/mit-task-force-releases-preliminary-future-libraries-report-1024 (accessed 10 March 2019).

18.

Dr Steevens’ Library (n.d.) LENUS: The Irish Health Repository. Available at: https://www.lenus.ie/hse/ (accessed 15 January 2019).

19.

Elsevier

(2017) (Disciplines of Medicine and Biochemistry) SciVal, RELX Group 2017 (July). Available at: https://www.scival.com/ (accessed 10 September 2017).

20.

Europe PMC (2017) Europe PMC. Available at: https://europepmc.org/ (accessed 26 October 2017).

21.

Europe PMC (2018) About Europe PMC. Available at: https://europepmc.org/About (accessed June 17 2018).

22.

Europe PMC (2019) Europe PMC’s response to the implementation guidance of Plan S. In: Blog - Europe PMC. Available at: http://blog.europepmc.org/ (accessed 3 March 2019).

23.

Europe PMC Consortium (2015) Europe PMC: A full-text literature database for the life sciences and platform for innovation. Nucleic Acids Research: D1042–D1048. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1061.

24.

Fjordback Søndergaard

Andersen

Hjørland

(2003) Documents and the communication of scientific and scholarly information: Revising and updating the UNISIST model. Journal of Documentation 59(3): 278–320.

25.

Four Corners ABC (2015) Wasted (Video). Available at: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/wasted-promo/6804372 (accessed 29 October 2017).

26.

Fyfe

McDougall-Waters

Moxham

(2015) 350 years of scientific periodicals. Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 69(3): 227–239.

27.

Gabbay

le May

(2010) Practice-based Evidence for Healthcare Clinical Mindlines. Hoboken, NJ: Taylor & Francis.

28.

Gezelter

(2009) What, exactly, is Open Science? Available at: http://openscience.org/what-exactly-is-open-science/ (accessed 10 March 2019).

29.

Greenberg

Gallagher

(2009) The great contribution: Index Medicus, Index-Catalogue, and IndexCat. Journal of the Medical Library Association 97(2): 108–113.

30.

Grimes

Schulz

(2002) An overview of clinical research: The lay of the land. The Lancet 359(9300): 57–61.

31.

Halawi

Aronson

McCarthy

(2005) Resource-based view of knowledge management for competitive advantage. Electronic Journal of Knowledge Management 3(2): 75.

32.

Haynes

(2001) Of studies, syntheses, synopses, and systems: The ‘4S’ evolution of services for finding current best evidence. ACP Journal Club 134(2): A11–A11.

33.

Haynes

(2006) Of studies, syntheses, synopses, summaries, and systems: The ‘5S’ evolution of information services for evidence-based health care decisions. ACP Journal Club 145(3): A8–A8.

34.

Heriyanto (2018) Understanding how Australian researchers experience open access as part of their information literacy. PhD Thesis, QUT, Brisbane, Qld, Australia. Available at: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/117651/ (accessed 12 April 2019).

35.

Huber

Swogger

(eds) (2014) Introduction to Reference Sources in the Health Sciences. Chicago: Neal-Schuman.

36.

Jennex

Smolnik

Croasdell

(2009) Towards a consensus knowledge management success definition. Vine 39(2): 174–188.

37.

Joo

Hofman

Kim

(2018) Investigation of challenges in academic institutional repositories: A survey of academic librarians. Library Hi Tech. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1108/LHT-12-2017-0266.

38.

Kennan

(2008) Reassembling scholarly publishing: Open access, institutional repositories and the process of change. PhD Thesis, University of New South Wales Information Systems Technology & Management, Sydney, NSW, Australia.

39.

Kingsley

(2010) The effect of scholarly communication practices on engagement with open access: An Australian study of three disciplines. PhD Thesis, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia.

40.

Kramer

Bosman

(2016) Innovations in scholarly communication: Global survey on research tool usage. F1000Res 5692. DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.8414.1.

41.

Kramer

Bosman

(2017) Wheel of Open Science practices (Image). Available at: https://figshare.com/articles/Wheel_of_Open_Science_practices_image_/4628014 (accessed 12 April 2019).

42.

Kruesi

(2018) PubMed Central International (PMCI): Is it time for an Australasia member? In: Adapting, transforming, leading: Medical Library Association annual meeting & exhibition, Atlanta, GA, USA. Available at: https://www.eventscribe.com/upload/planner/links/MLA18_Paper_Abstracts_as_of_May_14_20181_47.pdf (accessed 12 April 2019).

43.

Kruesi

Burstein

Tanner

(2019) With open science gaining traction, do we need an Australasia PubMed Central (PMC)? A qualitative investigation. PLoS ONE 14(2): e0212843.

44.

Kruesi

Tanner

Burstein

(2018) Knowledge management theory and the Evidence-Based Healthcare Model to guide the design for an Australasia open biomedical repository. In: IFLA WLIC 2018, Transform libraries, transform societies, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Available at: http://library.ifla.org/id/eprint/2184 (accessed 12 April 2019).

45.

Landa

(2017) PMC Canada: Interview with L Kruesi.

46.

Lariviere

Sugimoto

CR.

(2018) Do authors comply with mandates for open access? Nature 562(7728): 483–486.

47.

Loan

Sheikh

(2016) Analytical study of open access health and medical repositories. Electronic Library 34(3): 419–434.

48.

(2011) PubMed and beyond: A survey of web tools for searching biomedical literature. Database 2011: baq036. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baq036.

49.

McEntyre

Lipman

(2001) PubMed: Bridging the information gap. Canadian Medical Association Journal 164(9): 1317–1319.

50.

Maier

(2007) Knowledge Management Systems: Information and Communication Technologies for Knowledge Management. Berlin: Springer.

51.

Marginson

(2007) Global university rankings: Implications in general and for Australia. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management 29(2): 131–142.

52.

Mårtensson

(2000) A critical review of knowledge management as a management tool. Journal of Knowledge Management 4(3): 204–216.

53.

Nankivell

Wallis

Mynott

(2001) Networked information and clinical decision making: the experience of Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull National Health Service Trust (Teaching). Medical Education 35(2): 167–172.

54.

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2016) NHMRC statement on data sharing. Available at: https://www.nhmrc.gov.au/grants-funding/policy/nhmrc-statement-data-sharing (accessed 28 September 2017).

55.

National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia) (2018) Open Access Policy. Available at: https://nhmrc.gov.au/about-us/publications/open-access-policy (accessed 13 January 2019).

56.

National Research Council Canada (2017) PMC Canada (PubMed Central Canada). Available at: https://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/publications/library_services/pmccanada/index.html (accessed 2 November 2017).

57.

Nonaka

(1994) A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science 5(1): 14–37.

58.

Petrisor

Bhandari

(2007) The hierarchy of evidence: Levels and grades of recommendation. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics 41(1): 11–15.

59.

Pinfield

(2009) Journals and repositories: An evolving relationship? Learned Publishing 22(3): 165–175.

60.

Pinfield

Salter

Bath

, et al. (2014) Open access repositories worldwide, 2005–2012: Past growth, current characteristics, and future possibilities. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology 65(12): 2404–2421.

61.

Poynder

(2016) In: Q&A with CNI’s Clifford Lynch: Time to re-think the institutional repository. Available at: http://www.richardpoynder.co.uk/Clifford_Lynch.pdf (accessed 10 March 2019).

62.

Przybyła

Shardlow

Aubin

, et al. (2016) Text mining resources for the life sciences. Database: baw145. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1093/database/baw145.

63.

Research Australia (2016) Available at: http://researchaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/MRFF-A-Research-Australia-Perspective.pdf (accessed 13 January 2019).

64.

Roberts

(2001) PubMed Central: The GenBank of the published literature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98(2): 381–382.

65.

Sackett

(2000) Evidence Based Medicine: How to Practice and Teach EBM. Edinburgh: Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone.

66.

Saito

Umemoto

Ikeda

(2007) A strategy-based ontology of knowledge management technologies. Journal of Knowledge Management 11(1): 97–114.

67.

Sample

(2012) Harvard University says it can’t afford journal publishers’ prices. The Guardian, 24 April. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/apr/24/harvard-university-journal-publishers-prices.

68.

Science Europe (2015) Science Europe principles on open access to research publications. Available at: http://www.scienceeurope.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/SE_POA_Pos_Statement_WEB_FINAL_20150617.pdf (accessed 13 January 2019).

69.

Sequeira

McEntyre

Lipman

(2001) PubMed central decentralized. Nature 410(6830): 740.

70.

Shaneyfelt

(2016) Pyramids are guides not rules: The evolution of the evidence pyramid. Evidence Based Medicine 21(4): 121–122.

71.

Steele

(2013) Open access in Australia: An odyssey of sorts? Insights 26(3): 283–289.

72.

Suber

(2015) Open Access Overview. Available at: http://bit.ly/oa-overview (accessed 10 March 2019).

73.

Tenopir

King

(1998) Designing electronic journals with 30 years of lessons from print. Journal of Electronic Publishing 4(2). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.3998/3336451.0004.202.

74.

Tuomi

(1999) Data is more than knowledge: Implications of the reversed knowledge hierarchy for knowledge management and organizational memory. Journal of Management Information Systems 16(3): 103–117.

75.

United Kingdom Council of Research Repositories (2019) Plan S and institutional repositories: A response from UKCORR. In: UKCORR Blog. Available at: http://www.ukcorr.org/2019/02/08/plan-s-and-institutional-repositories-a-response-from-ukcorr/?calendar_month=1&calendar_year=2019 (accessed 3 March 2019).

76.

University of Nottingham (UK) (2019) Directory of Open Access Repositories (OpenDOAR). Available at: http://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/information.html (accessed 13 January 2019).

77.

US Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health (2008) NIH Public Access Policy. Available at: https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm (accessed 10 March 2019).

78.

US National Library of Medicine (2018) MEDLINE®: Description of the Database. Available at: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/medline.html (accessed 13 January 2019).

79.

US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (2011) PMC Overview. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/intro/ (accessed 13 January 2019).

80.

US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (2018a) PMC and Research Funder Policies. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/public-access/ (accessed 19 January 2019).

81.

US National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (2018b) PMC International. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/about/pmci/ (accessed January 11 2019).

82.

Wellcome Trust (2006) Open access policy. Available at: http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTD002766.htm (accessed 10 March 2019).

83.

Williamson

Minter

(2019) Exploring PubMed as a reliable resource for scholarly communications services. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA 107(1): 16–29.

84.

Yoo

Marinov

(2010) Recent research for MEDLINE/PubMed: Short review. Proceedings of the ACM fourth international workshop on Data and text mining in biomedical informatics. Association for Computing Machinery, 69–70. Available at: https://dlnext.acm.org/doi/10.1145/1871871 (accessed 10 March 2017).

85.

ZB Med Information Centre for Life Sciences (2018) Repository for Life Sciences. Available at: https://www.publisso.de/en/publishing/repositories/repository-for-life-sciences/ (accessed 15 January 2019).