Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Access

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Information Retrieval: A Biomedical and Health Perspective

Part of the book series: Health Informatics ((HI))

  • 664 Accesses

Abstract

Discussion of information retrieval (IR) systems thus far has focused on the provision of retrieval mechanisms to access online content. But there are a host of larger issues related to access of information, such libraries, access to content, copyright and intellectual property (IP), preservation of digital materials, and open-access publishing with the emerging larger open science. This chapter expands the perspective on IR systems to look at their role in the context of access to information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.ala.org/

  2. 2.

    https://www.sla.org/

  3. 3.

    https://www.mlanet.org/

  4. 4.

    http://www.dlib.org/

  5. 5.

    http://www.jcdl.org/

  6. 6.

    https://fairsharing.org/

  7. 7.

    https://www.doi.org/

  8. 8.

    https://www.doi.org/hb.html

  9. 9.

    https://academic.oup.com/jamia/article/13/5/488/733702

  10. 10.

    https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-0-387-78703-9

  11. 11.

    https://www.crossref.org/

  12. 12.

    https://www.datacite.org/

  13. 13.

    https://www.force11.org/datacitationprinciples

  14. 14.

    https://zenodo.org/

  15. 15.

    http://www.openarchives.org/

  16. 16.

    http://www.openarchives.org/rs/resourcesync

  17. 17.

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/tools/oai/

  18. 18.

    https://www.eagle-i.net/

  19. 19.

    http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4114-5148

  20. 20.

    https://wiki.hl7.org/Infobutton

  21. 21.

    https://www.healthit.gov/test-method/patient-specific-education-resources

  22. 22.

    https://medlineplus.gov/connect/overview.html

  23. 23.

    https://www.wipo.int/portal/en/

  24. 24.

    https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

  25. 25.

    https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html

  26. 26.

    https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/

  27. 27.

    http://www.copyright.com/

  28. 28.

    https://creativecommons.org/

  29. 29.

    https://creativecommons.org/use-remix/cc-licenses/

  30. 30.

    https://search.creativecommons.org/

  31. 31.

    https://www.youtube.com/

  32. 32.

    https://www.wikipedia.org/

  33. 33.

    https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/education-oer/

  34. 34.

    https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/open-data/

  35. 35.

    https://creativecommons.org/about/program-areas/open-science/

  36. 36.

    https://www.taxpayeraccess.org/

  37. 37.

    https://www.fosteropenscience.eu/

  38. 38.

    https://www.biomedcentral.com/

  39. 39.

    https://www.plos.org/

  40. 40.

    https://publicaccess.nih.gov/

  41. 41.

    https://www.wellcome.ac.uk/

  42. 42.

    https://www.hhmi.org/

  43. 43.

    https://publicaccess.nih.gov/policy.htm

  44. 44.

    https://www.elsevier.com/about/policies/sharing

  45. 45.

    https://www.springernature.com/gp/authors/research-data-policy

  46. 46.

    https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/

  47. 47.

    https://doaj.org/

  48. 48.

    https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/

  49. 49.

    https://www.lockss.org/

  50. 50.

    https://clockss.org/

  51. 51.

    https://www.portico.org/

  52. 52.

    https://archive.org/

  53. 53.

    https://archive-it.org/

  54. 54.

    http://www.digitalpreservation.gov/

  55. 55.

    https://www.dpconline.org/

References

  1. Hildreth C. The online catalogue: developments and directions. The Library Association: London, England; 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Lesk M. Understanding Digital Libraries. 2nd ed. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Price D. Little science, big science. New York: Columbia University Press; 1963.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  4. Anonymous. The deterioration and preservation of paper: some essential facts. Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Borgman C. What are digital libraries? Competing visions. Inf Process Manag. 1999;35:227–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Weise F. Being there: library as place. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:6–13.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Monastersky R. Publishing frontiers: the library reboot. Nature. 2013;495:430–2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Arms W. Digital Libraries. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press; 2001.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Witten I, Bainbridge D, Nichols D. How to build a digital library. 2nd ed. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Purcell A. Digital library programs for libraries and archives: developing, managing, and sustaining unique digital collections. American Library Association: Chicago, IL; 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Banerjee K, Reese T. Building digital libraries 2nd edition. Amazon Digital Services; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Anonymous. Mass digitization: implications for information policy. Washington, DC: U.S. National Commission on Libraries and Information Science 2006 May 9, 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Fox E, Goncalves M, Shen R. Theoretical foundations for digital libraries: the 5S (societies, scenarios, spaces, structures, streams) approach. Morgan & Claypool: San Rafael, CA; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Perrier L, Farrell A, Ayala A, Lightfoot D, Kenny T, Aaronson E, et al. Effects of librarian-provided services in healthcare settings: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2014;21:1118–24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Wilkinson M, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg I, Appleton G, Axton M, vander Lei J, et al. The FAIR guiding principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Scientific Data. 2016;3:160018.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Haendel M, Su A, McMurry J. FAIR-TLC: metrics to assess value of biomedical digital repositories: response to RFI NOT-OD-16-133. Zenodo. 2016 December;15:2016.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Sollins K, Masinter L. Functional requirements for uniform resource names: internet engineering task force 1994 July 1, 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Hersh W, Müller H, Jensen J, Yang J, Gorman P, Ruch P. Advancing biomedical image retrieval: development and analysis of a test collection. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:488–96.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Miller P. Z39.50 for all. Ariadne. 1999;21.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Masys D. An evaluation of the source selection elements of the prototype UMLS information sources map. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care; 1992; Baltimore, MD: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Miller P, Frawley S, Wright L, Roderer N, Powsner S. Lessons learned from a pilot implementation of the UMLS information sources map. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2:102–15.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Mendonça E, Cimino J. Evaluation of the information sources map. Proceedings of the AMIA 1999 annual symposium. Washington, DC: Hanley & Belfus; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Arms W, Hillmann D, Lagoze C, Krafft D, Marisa R, Saylor J et al. A spectrum of interoperability: the site for science prototype for the NSDL. D-Lib Magazine 2002;8.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Lagoze C, Vande Sompel H. The Open Archives Initiative: building a low-barrier interoperability framework. Proceedings of the First ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries; 2001; Roanoke, VA: ACM Press.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Vande Sompel H, Nelson M, Lagoze C, Warner S. Resource harvesting within the OAI-PMH framework. D-Lib Magazine. 2004;10(12)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Vasilevsky N, Johnson T, Corday K, Torniai C, Brush M, Segerdell E, et al. Research resources: curating the new eagle-i discovery system. Database. 2012;2012:bar067.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Vasilevsky N, Brush M, Paddock H, Ponting L, Tripathy S, Larocca G, et al. On the reproducibility of science: unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature. PeerJ. 2013;5(1):e148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Hersh W. Meeting My Doppelgänger (Googlegänger). Infromatics Professor 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cimino J. Linking patient information systems to bibliographic resources. Methods Inf Med. 1996;35:122–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Powsner S, Miller P. Linking bibliographic retrieval to clinical reports: Psychtopix. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care; 1989; Washington, DC: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Miller R, Gieszczykiewicz F, Vries J, Cooper G. CHARTLINE: providing bibliographic references relevant to patient charts using the UMLS Metathesaurus knowledge sources. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care; 1992; Baltimore, MD: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Cimino J, Aguirre A, Johnson S, Peng P. Generic queries for meeting clinical information needs. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1993;81:195–206.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Cimino J, Johnson S, Aguirre A, Roderer N, Clayton P. The MEDLINE button. Proceedings of the 16th Annual Symposium on Computer Applications in Medical Care; 1992; Baltimore, MD: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Cimino J, Socratorus S, Clayton P. Internet as clinical information system: application development using the world wide web. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 1995;2:273–84.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Cimino J, Li J, Bakken S, Patel V. Theoretical, empirical and practical approaches to resolving the unmet information needs of clinical information system users. Proceedings of the 2002 AMIA Annual Symposium; 2002; San Antonio, TX: Hanley & Belfus.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Heale B, Overby C, DelFiol G, Rubinstein W, Maglott D, Nelson T, et al. Integrating genomic resources with electronic health records using the HL7 infobutton standard. Appl Clin Inform. 2016;7:817–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  37. Strasberg H, DelFiol G, Cimino J. Terminology challenges implementing the HL7 context-aware knowledge retrieval (‘Infobutton’) standard. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2013;20:218–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Cook D, Teixeira M, Heale B, Cimino J, DelFiol G. Context-sensitive decision support (infobuttons) in electronic health records: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2017;24:460–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Teixeira M, Cook D, Heale B, DelFiol G. Optimization of infobutton design and implementation: a systematic review. J Biomed Inform. 2017;74:10–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Adler P, Aufderheide P, Butler B, Jaszi P. Code of best practices in fair use for academic and research libraries, vol. 2012. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries; 2012 January.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Anonymous. So, what is (and Isn’t) protected by copyright? Where copyright protection begins and ends. Danvers, MA: Copyright Clearance Center; 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Tyrväinen P. Concepts and a design for fair use and privacy in DRM. D-Lib Magazine. 2005;11(2).

    Google Scholar 

  43. Rosenblatt B, Trippe B, Mooney S. Digital rights management–business and technology. New York: M&T Books; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Spedding S. Open access publishing of health research: does open access publishing facilitate the translation of research into health policy and practice? Publications. 2016;4(1):2.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Pontika N, Knoth P, Cancellieri M, Pearce S. Fostering Open Science to research using a taxonomy and an eLearning portal. Milton Keynes, UK: Open University; 2015.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  46. Pakenham-Walsh N, Godlee F. Healthcare information for all. Br Med J. 2020;368:m759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Wiener M, Sommer F, Ives Z, Poldrack R, Litt B. Enabling an open data ecosystem for the neurosciences. Neuron. 2016;92:617–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Anonymous. Open Science by design–realizing a vision for 21st century research. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sansone S, Rocca-Serra P. Interoperability standards–digital objects in their own right. London, England Wellcome Trust 2016 October, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Kaiser J. Funding for key data resources in jeopardy. Science. 2016;351:14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Heller M. The tragedy of the anticommons: a concise introduction and lexicon. The Modern Law Review. 2013;76(1):6–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Contreras J. The anticommons at 20: concerns for research continue. Science. 2018;361:335–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Horton R. 21st-century biomedical journals: failures and futures. Lancet. 2003;362:1510–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. DeAngelis C, Musacchio R. Access to JAMA. J Am Med Assoc. 2004;291:370–1.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  55. Laakso M, Welling P, Bukvova H, Nyman L, Björk B, Hedlund T. The development of open access journal publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS One. 2011;6(6):e20961.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  56. Frank M. Open but not free--publishing in the 21st century. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:787–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Zerhouni E. Access to biomedical research information. National Institutes of Health: Bethesda, MD; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Tooker J. ACP comments on proposed NIH public access policy. Philadelphia, PA: American College of Physicians 2004 November 18, 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Drazen J, Curfman G. Public access to biomedical research. N Engl J Med. 2004;351:1343.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Kaiser J. Scientific publishing. Uncle Sam’s biomedical archive wants your papers. Science. 2008;319:266.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Miguel S, Tannuridede Oliveira E, CabriniGrácio M. Scientific production on open access: a worldwide bibliometric analysis in the academic and scientific context. Publications. 2016;4(1):1.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Gargouri Y, Hajjem C, Larivière V, Gingras Y, Carr L, Brody T, et al. Self-selected or mandated, open access increases citation impact for higher quality research. PLoS One. 2010;5(10):e13636.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Haug C. The downside of open-access publishing. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:791–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Beall J. Predatory journals exploit structural weaknesses in scholarly publishing. 4Open. 2018;1.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Shamseer L, Moher D, Maduekwe O, Turner L, Barbour V, Burch R, et al. Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison. BMC Med. 2017;15:28.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  66. Shen C, Björk B. ‘Predatory’ open access: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Med. 2015;13:230.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  67. Sorokowski P, Sorokowska A, Pisanski K. Predatory journals recruit fake editor. Nature. 2017;543:481–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Grant A. The proliferation of questionable conferences. Phys Today. 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Bartneck C. iOS just got a paper on Nuclear Physics accepted at a scientific conference. Christoph Bartneck. 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  70. McCool J. Opinion: why I published in a predatory journal. The Scientist. 2017 April;6:2017.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Anonymous. Predatory Journals Hit by ‘Star Wars’ Sting. Neuroskeptic 2017.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Manca A, Moher D, Cugusi L, Dvir Z, Deriu F. How predatory journals leak into PubMed. Can Med Assoc J. 2018;190:E1042–E5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  73. Anonymous. Statement on article publication resulting from NIH Funded Research. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health 2017 November 3, 2017 Contract No.: NOT-OD-18-011.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Björk B, Kanto-Karvonen S, Harviainen JT. How frequently are articles in predatory open access journals cited. arXivorg. 2019:arXiv:1912.10228.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Moher D, Moher E. Stop predatory publishers now: act collaboratively. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164:616–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Moher D, Shamseer L, Cobey K. Stop this waste of people, animals and money. Nature. 2017;549:23–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Straumsheim C. No more ‘Beall’s list. Inside Higher Ed. 2017 January;18:2017.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Kirchhoff A, Morrissey S, Wittenberg K. Networked Information’s risky future: the promises and challenges of digital preservation. Educ Rev. 2015 March;2:2015.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Saper G. Microfilm lasts half a millennium. The Atlantic. 2018 July;22:2018.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Rothenberg J. Ensuring the longevity of digital information. RAND Corporation. 1999;. http://www.clir.org/pubs/archives/ensuring.pdf

  81. Rosenthal DSH, Vargas DL. LOCKSS Boxes in the Cloud. LOCKSS Program, Stanford University Libraries: Palo Alto, CA, 2012. http://www.lockss.org/locksswp/wpcontent/uploads/2012/09/LC-final-2012.pdf.

  82. Kahle B. Preserving the internet. Sci Am. 1997;276(3):82–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Friedlander A. The National Digital Information Infrastructure Preservation Program: expectations, realities, choices, and progress to date. D-Lib Magazine. 2002;8.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Beagrie N. An update on the digital preservation coalition. D-Lib Magazine. 2002;8.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Aufderheide P, Butler B, Cox K, Jaszi P. Code of best practices in fair use for software preservation, vol. 2019. Washington, DC: Association of Research Libraries; 2019 February.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Davidoff F, Florance V. The informationist: a new health profession? Ann Intern Med. 2000;132:996–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Schacher L. Clinical librarianship: its value in medical care. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:717–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. Garfield E. Bradford’s law and related statistical patterns. In: Garfield E, editor. Essays of an information scientist: 1979–1980. Philadelphia: Institute for Scientific Information; 1979. p. 476–83.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Quint B. The last librarians: end of a millennium. Canadian Journal of Information Science. 1992;17:33–40.

    Google Scholar 

  90. DeRosa A, editor. A practical guide for Informationists: supporting research and clinical practice: Elsevier; 2018.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Giuse N, Koonce T, Jerome R, Cahall M, Sathe N, Williams A. Evolution of a mature clinical informationist model. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2005;12:249–55.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. Lyon J, Giuse N, Williams A, Koonce T, Walden R. A model for training the new bioinformationist. J Med Libr Assoc. 2004;92:188–95.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  93. Florance V, Giuse N, Ketchell D. Information in context: integrating information specialists into practice settings. J Med Libr Assoc. 2002;90:49–58.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  94. Rosenbloom S, Giuse N, Jerome R, Blackford J. Providing evidence-based answers to complex clinical questions: evaluating the consistency of article selection. Acad Med. 2005;80:109–14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Giuse N, Williams A, Giuse D. Integrating best evidence into patient care: a process facilitated by a seamless integration with informatics tools. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010;98:220–2.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Grefsheim S, Whitmore S, Rapp B, Rankin J, Robison R, Canto C. The informationist: building evidence for an emerging health profession. J Med Libr Assoc. 2010;98:147–56.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

    William Hersh

Authors
  1. William Hersh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Hersh .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Hersh, W. (2020). Access. In: Information Retrieval: A Biomedical and Health Perspective. Health Informatics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47686-1_6

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-47686-1_6

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-47685-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-47686-1

  • eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation