The document analyzes the use of PubMed Commons, a forum on the PubMed database for scholarly discussion. Through social network analysis and content analysis of posts, the researchers found: 1) The social network of authors brokering connections on the forum was small and disconnected, with only 12 authors connecting. 2) Content analysis of posts revealed common themes of discussing, inquiring, disputing, and validating information about published articles. 3) While the forum provides a venue for open scholarly exchange, overall interaction and influence on the PubMed database has been minimal to date.

1. PubMed Commons: Advancing Peer-to-Peer Scholarly Communication
Toward Improving Health Outcomes
Michelle Farabough, MSKM, and Shelly Burns, MLIS, AHIP University of North Texas, College of Information, Department of Library and Information Science
• Closed, pre-publication peer review has been a hallmark of academic
communication for centuries.
• Leveraging social media for public scholarly discourse could provide a
more rapid, transparent, open science to improve health care.
• In 2013, NLM introduced PubMed Commons, providing an audience
and a forum for “authors to share opinions and information about
scientific publications in PubMed.” 1
Background
RQ1: To what extent do authors utilize PubMed Commons as a tool
for health information exchange?
RQ2: What types of social connections exist between authors?
RQ3: What types of information are exchanged in threaded posts?
Research Questions
Limitations
• Forum interaction is dynamic: Posts were collected through
March, 2015; SNA sociogram depicts data as of April, 2014.
• Authors commenting on their own posts gives a false sense of
forum activity, as well as community size.
• Defining network parameters is problematic.
• Investigation examined online posts; no member checking.
• Cannot measure lurker impressions and information sharing.
• PubMed does not support searching within comments.
Implications
• A mixed-methods investigation using social network analysis (SNA) and
qualitative content analysis could be used for any social media forum to
identify successful information exchange and indicate needed alterations
to promote meaningful communication.
• Open, post-publication discussion could accelerate translational science
toward improving health care.
• The PubMed Commons forum facilitates interaction between authors,
readers, practitioners, researchers, educators, students, and others who
otherwise would not have the opportunity for information exchange;
the forum effectively demonstrates the broader impact of open science.
• Collective, societal peer-review aims to expose “bad science” and rectify
erroneous information shared in comments.
• Early indications of activity and networks should not be taken as signs
of success or failure. Like other cultural changes, it could take years
to build trust within a scientific community and to create an integrated,
information exchange network of participating readers and authors.
Future Research
• Quantify content analysis themes, publication profiles, article subject
matter, and posting time of day.
• Define, investigate, and visually demonstrate distinct networks.
• Evaluate the role and effects of moderator.
• Compare PubMed Commons with similar forums (e.g., PubPeer).
• Conduct survey and key informant interviews, including NLM workers.
• Investigate discourse flow.
Methods
• Cross-sectional design using UCInet social network analysis (SNA)2
and NetDraw visualization programs demonstrated the current
extent of communication connections within PubMed Commons.
• Grounded theory-based3 content analysis of message ideas4 extracted
from posts revealed communication themes.
Selected References
1. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. (2015). PubMed Commons: A forum for
scientific discourse. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedcommons/
2. Hanneman, R. A. and Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside, CA: University of California,
Riverside. Retrieved from http://faculty.ucr.edu/~hanneman/
3. Glaser, B.G. & Strauss, A.L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago, IL: Aldine
Publishing Company.
4. McKenzie, W., Murphy, D. (2000). "I hope this goes somewhere": Evaluation of an online discussion group. Australian
Journal of Educational Technology 2000, 16(3), 239-257.
Findings from PubMed Commons
Watchdog
Humor
Redirecting
Flaming
Validating
InquiringDisputing
Discussing
Promoting
Public
Forum
Author
Response
Comment Examples and Themes
The social network analysis sociogram depicts a disconnected
structure with only 12 article authors brokering connections.
“This kind of perspective from a cardiovascular scientist is most
beneficial to general internists like me.”
“There are several inconsistencies and misinterpretations in the data
which seriously undermines the main conclusion on the paper.”
“Since the JAOA denied us the opportunity to reply to the letter in print,
we are posting our response here on PubMed Commons.”
“With all respect to the commenter, the misleading posted arguments
and evident lack of insight… underscores the danger of such unsolicited
and unreviewed posting, not subject to peer review.”
“I had contact with the main author to alert her to certain
misconceptions published earlier. Sadly, I found I had wasted my time.”
“Here is a link to the related paper on using machine learning…”
As of April, 2014.
346
910
487
238
141
1049086
6271
51402726181918 8 1811 5 11 5 7 6 7 8 2 1 3 4 4 5 3 2 2 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
2015 2010 2005 2000 1995 1990 1985 1980 1974 1967 1960 1955
Forum Activity
Year of Publication
Numberofposts
Reflects data collection
through July 15, 2015.
Minimal amount of potential
influence has been exercised.
Percentage of PM
articles without
comments.
Percentage of PubMed
articles with comments.
99.99%
0.01%
Author Communication Network