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/