On 2014 May 31, David Keller commented:

Bravo - Open Access to scientific studies, reviews and comments will accelerate progress

Based on the history of science over the past 300 years, open access to scientific data and discussions can only be a good thing, and serve to accelerate the pace of discoveries and understanding. In particular, PubMed Commons should be applauded for providing scientists and clinicians an open access platform on which to exchange views in a productive way. For those interested in pharmacology, reading and contributing to CPT:Pharmacometric & Systems Pharmacology will help ensure the success of this new open access venture.

Often, ideas are created or refined in the open access arena through online discussions of posted comments. However, scientists still rely on print journals, despite their limited or delayed open access, to disseminate scientific contributions more widely, with greater impact, under the imprimatur of a peer-reviewed journal, and with PubMed indexing.

In addition, many important journals, including Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA-IM, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, and others, adhere to a strict policy of not publishing material which has been posted on any open-access forum, to avoid the slightest hint of dual publication. This policy is counter-productive. These journals should recognize that work which has been discussed on PubMed Commons, or on any other website used by scientists, has not truly been published yet. For the purposes of publication by a journal, I suggest the following criteria be applied to define prior publication:

1) Peer review: was this manuscript subjected to peer review?

2) Indexing: has this manuscript been indexed by PubMed?

3) Imprimatur: has this manuscript been endorsed by any other journal or publishing entity?

4) Dissemination: has this manuscript been brought to the attention of a readership of appropriate size and composition?

If a manuscript has been previously posted on PubMed Commons or a similar website, and it lacks all 4 of the above attributes, I suggest that it not be considered previously published. Good ideas should not have to be kept secret through the long time periods while they await publication, delays which degrade their timeliness and utility.

It is time for the editors of our major journals to declare themselves solidly in support of open access to scientific data, reviews and comments by adopting the above 4 criteria to define prior publication.

On 2014 May 31, David Keller commented:

Bravo - Open Access to scientific studies, reviews and comments will accelerate progress

Based on the history of science over the past 300 years, open access to scientific data and discussions can only be a good thing, and serve to accelerate the pace of discoveries and understanding. In particular, PubMed Commons should be applauded for providing scientists and clinicians an open access platform on which to exchange views in a productive way. For those interested in pharmacology, reading and contributing to CPT:Pharmacometric & Systems Pharmacology will help ensure the success of this new open access venture.

Often, ideas are created or refined in the open access arena through online discussions of posted comments. However, scientists still rely on print journals, despite their limited or delayed open access, to disseminate scientific contributions more widely, with greater impact, under the imprimatur of a peer-reviewed journal, and with PubMed indexing.

In addition, many important journals, including Annals of Internal Medicine, JAMA-IM, Mayo Clinic Proceedings, and others, adhere to a strict policy of not publishing material which has been posted on any open-access forum, to avoid the slightest hint of dual publication. This policy is counter-productive. These journals should recognize that work which has been discussed on PubMed Commons, or on any other website used by scientists, has not truly been published yet. For the purposes of publication by a journal, I suggest the following criteria be applied to define prior publication:

1) Peer review: was this manuscript subjected to peer review?

2) Indexing: has this manuscript been indexed by PubMed?

3) Imprimatur: has this manuscript been endorsed by any other journal or publishing entity?

4) Dissemination: has this manuscript been brought to the attention of a readership of appropriate size and composition?

If a manuscript has been previously posted on PubMed Commons or a similar website, and it lacks all 4 of the above attributes, I suggest that it not be considered previously published. Good ideas should not have to be kept secret through the long time periods while they await publication, delays which degrade their timeliness and utility.

It is time for the editors of our major journals to declare themselves solidly in support of open access to scientific data, reviews and comments by adopting the above 4 criteria to define prior publication.