From: Heather Staines <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2018 16:20:06 -0500

For those interested in this, here is a blog post from Friday about
using Hypothesis annotation to preserve the PubMedCommons Archive:

https://web.hypothes.is/blog/archiving-pmc-comments/

Thanks,
Heather

On Sun, Feb 11, 2018 at 3:45 PM, LIBLICENSE <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> From: Anthony Watkinson <[log in to unmask]
> Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2018 09:50:48 +0000
>
> A post to a different list has explained some of the background for
> those who are interested.  See:
>
> https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be
> discontinued/
>
> and in particular look at the long tail
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anthony Watkinson [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: 05 February 2018 09:36
> To: 'LibLicense-L Discussion Forum'
> Subject: RE: PubMed Commons discontinued
>
> Do we know why this service has not been used much? I assume that
> PubMed did a survey of potential users before they started this
> service and would hope that they would do a different survey to find
> out why it has not worked. I cannot see how it can be a valuable
> experiment if they do not find out why it did not work. I know (Ann)
> are just the messenger but maybe someone on this list is associated
> with PubMed.
>
> My memory is that Nature did some work in this area some time ago and
> that they discontinued their services because of lack of use but I do
> not know what they learnt from the experiments.  Maybe they told us. I
> have not searched with any great perseverance because it is so
> difficult to find projects like this unless they are fairly recent.
>
> Anthony
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ann Shumelda Okerson <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: Sat, 3 Feb 2018 23:56:42 -0500
>
> PubMed Commons has been a valuable experiment in supporting discussion
> of published scientific literature. The service was first introduced
> as a pilot project in the fall of 2013 and was reviewed in 2015.
> Despite low levels of use at that time, NIH decided to extend the
> effort for another year or two in hopes that participation would
> increase. Unfortunately, usage has remained minimal, with comments
> submitted on only 6,000 of the 28 million articles indexed in PubMed.
>
> While many worthwhile comments were made through the service during
> its 4 years of operation, NIH has decided that the low level of
> participation does not warrant continued investment in the project,
> particularly given the availability of other commenting venues.
>
> https://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/