HealthContentAdvisors

Journals Need to Join the Online Social Mix

• Posted February 19th 2008
• by Janice

A recent post by Dr. Paul Levy, CEO of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, on Matthew Holt’s Health Care Blog chided the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) for publicizing an article that “has important public policy ramifications but does not make available the full text of the article” [unless one pays a $15 fee or is a subscriber].  In the comments to Dr. Levy’s post, a reader questions why JAMA can’t emulate the Wall Street Journal (WSJ), which not very long ago began allowing free access to articles for readers who follow links from blogs that reference specific articles, as well as opening general access to a limited number of articles that have broad interest.

We think that medical publishers should indeed follow the example of the WSJ (which, under new ownership of Rupert Murdoch, is expected to greatly increase free access to the news on the site, but retain certain high-value subscription content). Why? Because there is a large and growing audience of both medical professionals and consumers who are interested in the content from major medical journals and these readers are motivated to read and possibly pass along information about the articles to others.

Whether through participating in services like Sermo, which is targeted to medical professionals, or via Web-wide social networking sites like del.icio.us, Digg, MySpace, or Facebook—and of course blogs—the payoffs to journal publishers are many. They include: increasing exposure, connecting more directly with engaged readers who are not currently part of their core subscription base, and remaining relevant to medical professionals as the conversation moves online. Look for a discussion on whether or not subscription revenue will decline as a result of increasing free access in a future post.