Davis Open Access Talk
- 1. From PLoS to PMC and back again PLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed Central PLoS 2011
- 2. The access problem T Research R Teaching T Physicians P Patients, advocacy groups Public Health officials
- 3. The 2001 Public Library of Science Petition “…We pledge that, beginning in September 2001, we will publish in, edit or review for, and personally subscribe to only those scholarly and scientific journals that have agreed to grant unrestricted free distribu- tion rights to any and all original research reports that they have published, through PubMed Central and similar online public resources, within 6 months of their initial publication date”
- 4. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o m In 2009, Elsevier reported a profit of $1.1 billion on total revenues of $3.2 billion
- 5. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o m In 2009, Elsevier reported a profit of $1.1 billion on total revenues of $3.2 billion
- 6. ASCB: Molecular Biology of the Cell Research articles Published 2010: 362 Institutional subscription price: tiered pricing, range $450-750 Copyright: Author holds copyright under a Creative Commons Noncommercial Share Alike license Access policy (since 2001): MBC in Press preprints are freely available to anyone. Access to MBC Online is by subscription for two months, then freely available to anyone. All final articles are deposited in PubMed Central. Bottom line, FY10: $350,683
- 7. How can a 2-month embargo period be sufficient to protect subscription revenue? >> Online hits to articles in the January issue are highest in the first 2-3 months after publication, then drop precipitously
- 8. ASCB: Advocacy for broader public access The ASCB supports the proposed NIH policy on Public Access to NIH Research Information (NOT-OD-04-064) for the following reasons: 1. Barriers to scientific communication slow scientific progress. 2. A comprehensive, searchable database will profoundly enhance scientists’ research productivity. 3. It is fair that taxpayers have access to the research results that they funded. 4. Subscription income will not be adversely affected by the deposit of research articles in PubMed Central for open access six months following publication. 5. The proposed policy does not preclude publishers from restricting access to other value-added content that is not the result of NIH-funded research.
- 9. The NIH Public Access Policy In accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law. Compliance with this Policy remains a statutory requirement and a term and condition of the grant award and cooperative agreement. → Made permanent in 2009
- 10. Why Public Access? • ACCESS. Provide electronic access to NIH- funded research publications for patients, families, health professionals, scientists, teachers, and students. • ARCHIVE. Keep a central archive of NIH- funded research publications—for now and in the future, preserving vital medical research results and information for years to come. • ADVANCE SCIENCE. Create an information resource that will make it easier for scientists to mine medical research publications, and for NIH to manage better its entire research investment.
- 11. PLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed Central PLoS 2011
- 12. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available
- 13. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available • 500,000+ unique users retrieve 1 million articles every day • 79% of the articles in PMC have been accessed 11 times or more
- 14. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues … • Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act www.costumeexpress.com
- 15. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues … • Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act “This is the moment academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists … Elsevier's business does not make money by publishing our work, but by doing the exact opposite: restricting access to it.”
- 16. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues … • Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act • Efforts to improve access • HR5116: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 www.costumeexpress.com • HR5037: Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA) • Unsung heroes: SPARC
- 17. PLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed Central PLoS 2011 Public Access Open Access
- 18. Publ i c Ac c es s vs Open Ac c es s > F r e e l y avai l ab l e > F r e e l y an d i mme d i at e l y o n l i n e at s o me avai l ab l e o n l i n e poi nt > Co p yr i g h t al l o ws p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n unre s t ri ct e d re us e by Te x t mi n i n g www.bloggersodear.com www.frenchhousebnb.com S e man t i c e n r i c h me n t r e ad e r s , as l o n g as at t r i b u t i o n i s g i ve n D at a r e an al ys i s Cl as s r o o m u s e Tr an s l at i o n , e t c …
- 19. “ Our aim is to catalyze a revolution in scientific publishing by providing a compelling demonstration of the value and feasibility of open-access publication. If we succeed… this online public library of science will form a valuable resource for science education, lead to more informed healthcare decisions by doctors and patients, level the playing field for scientists in smaller or less wealthy institutions, and ensure that no one will be unable to read an important paper just because his or her institution does not subscribe to a particular journal.” (2003)
- 20. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003) • Establish high quality journals – put PLoS and open access on the map • Build a more extensive OA publishing operation – an open access home for every paper • Make the literature more useful – to scientists and the public
- 21. PLoS Journals 2003 2004 • Professional editors http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com • Highly selective • Added-value content/services PLoS Biology Academic EIC
- 22. PLoS Journals 2003 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2007
- 23. PLoS’ publishing operations are profitable
- 25. Why publish in PLoS ONE? • Open access, reasonable author charges • Inclusive scope – a publication for the whole of science • A new kind of peer review – Objective criteria: Is it technically sound? Does it meet reporting standards? Are the conclusions justified based on the data? – Not: interest, importance, significance • Streamlined production – acceptance to publication in as little as 3 wk • Post-publication evaluation tools
- 26. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: the proliferation of PLOS ONE clones
- 27. PLOS ONE: Challenges and lessons learned • Dealing with rapid growth, scaling • Processes, people • Consistent editorial decision-making • As the corpus grows: • Navigation of content • Outlier problems - quality of papers, processing time
- 28. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003) √ • Establish high quality journals – put PLoS and open access on the map √ • Build a more extensive OA publishing operation – an open access home for every paper • Make the literature more useful – to scientists and the public
- 29. PLoS (2011) : “Leading a Transformation in Research Communication” • Provide ways to overcome unnecessary barriers to immediate availability, access, and use of research • Pursue a publishing strategy that optimizes the openness, quality, and integrity of the publication process • Develop innovative approaches to the assessment, organization, and reuse of ideas and data
- 30. Experiments in progress • I mp r o ve d r e - u s e o f c o n t e n t > PLo S Hub s • me as u r i n g i mp ac t at t h e ar t i c l e ( n o t j o u r n al ) l e v > ar t i c l e - l e v e l me t r i c s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt • e n c o u r ag e mo r e r ap i d an d o p e n d at a s h ar i n g > PLo S Cur r e nt s • p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n d i s c u s s i o n & c o mme n t > c o mme nt i ng t o o l s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt • b r i d g e t h e g ap b e t we e n r e s e ar c h r e p o r t i n g an d t h e b r o ad e r p u b l i c > PLo S Bl o g s
- 31. How do we measure the impact / importance of a paper? • By t h e t i t l e / i mp ac t f ac t o r o f t h e j o u r n a i n wh i c h i t was p u b l i s h e d !!! NO !!! !!! NO !!!
- 32. How do we measure the impact / importance of a paper? How can we help readers decide what to read? • Ar t i c l e l e ve l me t r i c s > c i t at i o n s t o t h at s p e c i f i c ar t i c l e - s c h o l ar l y ( PMC, S c o p u s , Cr o s s r e f W S) o - o t h e r ( W k i p e d i a, F 1 000) i > p ag e vi e ws , p d f d o wn l o ad s > r e ad e r c o mme n t s , n o t e s , r at i n g s > b l o g an d me d i a c o ve r ag e > s o c i al me d i a d at a mi n i n g - Twe e t s , F ac e b o o k “ l i k e s ” , Me n d e l e t c … e t c ….
- 33. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000005 PLoS Article level metrics, v1: an example
- 35. ⇒ ALMs, combined with journals whose only criterion for acceptance is being scientifically sound (e.g. PLoS ONE)
- 37. Article level metrics Content re-use Post-publication discussion/comment Article of the future?