Skip top navigation
Information Interface Banner
May/June 2004
Volume 32/Issue 2

Print versus Electronic Media in Medical Publishing

In the days when print media reigned supreme, one occasionally had difficulty tracking down a reference. Perhaps the author did not cite the item correctly, or it appeared in an obscure journal that no nearby library owned. Web-based sources for reference and research are now gaining in popularity. Though convenient to use, these sources introduce a new accessibility wrinkle—they can outright disappear. In “Going, going, gone: Lost Internet references”, Robert Dellavalle and his colleagues look at the frequency, style, and stability of Internet references in the New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, and Science from a six-week period in each of the last three years.

Key findings:

  • 30% of articles had at least one Internet reference
  • Frequency of Internet citation increased in the two medical journals during the study period
  • Inactive references increased over time – 3.8% at 3 months, 10% at 15 months, 13% at 27 months
  • Commercial Internet sites were most likely to have become inactive (46% of inactive references at 27 months were .coms)
  • Organizational Internet sites were the most stable (5% of inactive references at 27 months were .orgs)
  • Use of access dates in citations varied greatly among the journals and throughout the study period

Source:
Dellavalle, R.P., et al. (2003). Going, going, gone: Lost Internet references. Science, 302, 787-788.

While frowned upon in theory, duplicate publication is a reality within medical literature. A recent article from JAMA examines this phenomenon and reports on different patterns that emerge among the duplicates. Erik von Elm and colleagues find that 8.3% of the articles in a series of systematic reviews are duplicate publications. Further, 63% of those duplicate publications provide no cross-references to the articles from which they stem.

Source:
von Elm, E., Poglia, G., Walder, B., and Tramer, M.R. (2004). Different patterns of duplicate publication: An analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA, 291(8), 974-980.

top

Himmelfarb Health Sciences Library | The George Washington University Medical Center
2300 Eye St., NW, Washington, DC 20037 | Phone: (202) 994-2850 | Fax: (202) 994-4343