PRO-SCIENCE
These sources consist of legitimate science or are evidence-based through credible scientific sourcing. Legitimate science follows the scientific method, is unbiased, and does not use emotional words. These sources also respect the consensus of experts in the given scientific field and strive to publish peer-reviewed science. Some sources in this category may have a slight political bias but adhere to scientific principles. See all Pro-Science sources.
- Overall, we rate BioMed Central as a Pro-Science open-source publisher. We also rate them Mostly Factual rather than High due to numerous retractions and a failed fact check.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: PRO-SCIENCE
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2000, BioMed Central, or BMC, is a United Kingdom-based, for-profit scientific open-access publisher. They publish more than 300 journals that are entirely online. According to their about page, “Our leading research journals include selective titles such as BMC Biology, BMC Medicine, Genome Biology and Genome Medicine, academic journals such as Journal of Hematology & Oncology, Malaria Journal, and Microbiome, and the BMC series, 65 inclusive journals focused on the needs of individual research communities. We also partner with leading institutions and societies to publish journals on their behalf.”
Read our profile on the UK government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
BioMed Central is owned by Springer Nature, an academic publishing company created by the May 2015 merger of Springer Science+Business Media and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group’s Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, and Macmillan Education. The company reported revenues of over 1 billion USD.
Analysis / Bias
In review, BioMed Central (BMC) is an open-access publisher of scientific journals. There are two types of Open Access Journals, legitimate and predatory, both of which charge the author for publication. Predatory journals often lack peer review and are generally considered not credible. BioMed Central is considered a legitimate, open-access publisher that is frequently indexed in PubMed. However, BMC journals have retracted numerous studies due to fake peer reviews.
Generally, BioMed Central publishes legitimate Peer-Reviewed studies; however, they have faced criticism for numerous retractions and a failed fact check. Therefore, we rate them as mostly factual rather than High.
Failed Fact Checks
Overall, we rate BioMed Central as a Pro-Science open-source publisher. We also rate them Mostly Factual rather than High due to numerous retractions and a failed fact check. (D. Van Zandt 4/5/2019) Updated (11/20/2023)
Source: https://www.biomedcentral.com
Last Updated on November 20, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources