Why don't physicians systematically publish in open access venues?
Is there any research/study/survey/... that looked at how the reasons why physicians and other clinical researchers do not systematically publish in open access venues?
Swan, Alma. Policy guidelines for the development and promotion of open access. UNESCO, 2012. shows that level of open access is low in medical sciences:
(2)2 Comments
Sorted by latest first Latest Oldest Best
I'm not sure your assertion is accurate at the present time, at least in regards to the US. The chart you provide stops at 2006, and NIH Public Access policy didn't kick in until 2008. Also, it is uncertain how "Open Access" is defined. NIH rules specify that an article (funded by NIH) must be available to the public after 12 months of exclusive (non-public) publication. So it may be the case that medical articles may be freely available to the public but still not meet certain criteria for "Open Access".
For several reasons: (if I really understand what you are asking)
The layman wouldn't understand medical terminology.
Worse, they would certainly misunderstand studies results. That might be dangerous.
One simple study in medicine means nothing. Nowadays it's all "evidence based medicine" which means "what one worker found in one study has to be confirmed by several others in order to be accepted by the medical community as a universal truth.
A layman reading the protocol of a research paper wouldn't understand it. Nor would they understand the statistics involved in validating the results.
There are other reasons but these must suffice to explain why medical literature isn't published in mainstream magazines.
Terms of Use Privacy policy Contact About Cancellation policy © freshhoot.com2026 All Rights reserved.