Skip Navigation



Bioinformatics Advance Access published online on April 15, 2008

Bioinformatics, doi:10.1093/bioinformatics/btn127
This Article
Right arrow Advance Access manuscript (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
24/11/1381    most recent
btn127v1
Right arrow Comments: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wren, J. D.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wren, J. D.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2008). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org

URL decay in MEDLINE – a 4-year follow-up study

Jonathan D. Wren *

Arthritis and Immunology Research Program, Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation; 825 N.E. 13th Street, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73104-5005.

*To whom correspondence should be addressed. Dr. Jonathan Wren, E-mail: Jonathan-Wren{at}OMRF.org


   Abstract

Motivation: Internet-based electronic resources, as given by Uniform Resource Locators (URLs), are being increasingly used in scientific publications but are also becoming inaccessible in a time-dependant manner, a phenomenon documented across disciplines. Initial reports brought attention to the problem, spawning methods of effectively preserving URL content while some journals adopted policies regarding URL publication and begun storing supplementary information on journal websites. Thus, a re-examination of URL growth and decay in the literature is merited to see if the problem has grown or been mitigated by any of these changes

Results: After the 2003 study, three follow-up studies were conducted in 2004, 2005 and 2007. Unfortunately, no significant change was found in the rate of URL decay among any of the studies. However, only 5% of URLs cited more than twice have decayed versus 20% of URLs cited once or twice. The most common types of lost content were computer programs (43%), followed by scholarly content (38%) and databases (19%). Compared to URLs still available, no lost content type was significantly over or under-represented. Searching for 30 of these websites using Google, 11 (37%) were found relocated to different URLs.

Conclusions: URL decay continues unabated, but URLs published by organizations tend to be more stable. Repeated citation of URLs suggests calculation of an electronic impact factor (eIF) would be an objective, quantitative way to measure the impact of Internet-based resources on scientific research.

Contact: Jonathan-Wren{at}OMRF.org

Associate Editor: Prof. Alfonso Valencia


Received on January 22, 2008; revised on March 11, 2008; accepted on April 6, 2008

Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
BioinformaticsHome page
J. D. Wren and A. Bateman
Databases, data tombs and dust in the wind
Bioinformatics, October 1, 2008; 24(19): 2127 - 2128.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.