Rka nxt 2010_web
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like1,214 views
The document discusses the challenges of the traditional scholarly publishing paradigm, highlighting issues such as high costs, accessibility, and the inefficiencies in the peer review process. It presents the PLOS model as a solution, emphasizing open access, innovative peer review methods, and the introduction of article-level metrics to enhance accessibility and community engagement. The talk advocates for a paradigm shift in publishing practices, ensuring that scientific knowledge is freely available to all, regardless of financial resources.
Rka nxt 2010_web
- 1. Open Access and The Next Revolution in Scholarly Publishing The PLoS Experience Ramy Karam Aziz TWAS/NXT Workshop. April 10, 2010 www.plos.org
- 2. Acknowledgments The following people contributed significantly to this presentation: • Mark Patterson, Director of Publishing, PLoS • Björn Brembs, Freie Universität Berlin • Peter Binfield, Managing Editor, PLoS ONE www.plos.org
- 3. Outline • Prologue: Why do we publish? • Part I: The current paradigm and its shortcomings/anomalies • Part II: Alternative paradigm – II.A. How Open Access addresses the current anomalies – II.B. How PLoS, in particular, addresses these anomalies • Epilogue: Paradigm shift Publishing utopia? www.plos.org
- 4. Prologue Why do we publish scientific papers? www.plos.org
- 5. Audience opinion Why do you (want to) publish in scholarly journals? – Name the single most important reason www.plos.org
- 6. The current paradigm Publish or perish = Survival for the most published www.plos.org
- 7. Let me start by telling you a story… SURVIVOR! slightly modified from my PhD seminar, Dec 2004 www.plos.org
- 8. Scientists under selection pressure Courses Exams Prelim Project Life surprises PhD Defense Not the end www.plos.org of the story
- 9. Scientists under selection pressure $$ Threshold Real World trap Opportunity And (s)he lived happily www.plos.org ever after
- 10. Test yourself… • Are you ready to just put your laboratory data or research results online to share them with the scientific community (open science)? • If you have the choice to put your scientific product in ONLY ONE venue, what will be your choice, and why? – CNN – Your local newspaper – Nature/Science magazines – Your website – Other sources… www.plos.org
- 11. Test yourself… • What is the primary reason for choosing a journal to publish your work? – Journal‟s topic/ specialty – Journal‟s impact factor – Journal‟s prestige – Open-access journal – Least accessible journals (to hide some weak work?) • If you have a limited amount of money, would you rather: – Pay to read a paper – Pay to publish a paper www.plos.org
- 12. Reminder… Theoretically, at least: • We do research to fill gaps in knowledge, to improve human life and health, to satisfy our curiosity • We publish to share knowledge with peers, students, and the community • Publishing is a means to an end. Yes, really! www.plos.org
- 13. Problem: anomalies in the current publishing paradigm Credits: Several slides in this part are contributed by Björn Brembs www.plos.org
- 14. Publishing yesterday… 1665: One journal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal www.plos.org Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)
- 15. Publishing today • 24,000 scholarly journals • 1.5 million publications/year • 3% annual growth • 1 million authors • 10-15 million readers at >10,000 institutions • 1.5 billion downloads/year Source: Mabe MA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22 www.plos.org
- 16. Let me tell you the rest of the story… SURVIVOR! Part II: Post-survival syndrome! www.plos.org
- 17. Publishing these days I see you have done some great work. I can publish it for you! Finally, someone appreciates our great work! Publishing enterprise We, the scientists www.plos.org
- 18. Publishing these days I will need your help though. Please format it EXACTLY as follows: 1… 2… 3… 15… !! Can’t we just put it on our website? www.plos.org
- 19. Publishing these days Oh, no! We give you credibility and guarantee you wide readership? Credi… Huh! I thought what? Internet nowadays Credit? has the widest readership…. www.plos.org
- 20. Publishing these days Please also tell me who among your peers can review it, of course according to MY OK… X &Y are conditions and criteria my friends. Please exclude Z! www.plos.org
- 21. Publishing these days The anonymous reviewers liked your work, but Is that what they recommended 15 more would have done? experiments to confirm Can they even do the results of your 3 these experiments? experiments. www.plos.org
- 22. Publishing these days Congratulations. After thorough peer review (using someone else’s time and effort), we agree to publish YOUR revised work but you have to give us the permission to OWN and redistribute YOUR work www.plos.org
- 23. Publishing these days All you need to pay is $500 for two color figures. We send you a free copy of the journal and a PDF of the article How generous! www.plos.org
- 24. Publishing these days The paper looks great. Can we access the final online full-text version? Well… Sorry you cannot access YOUR full-text article online. Your institution needs to pay $10,000 a year. Unless you’re willing to pay only $200 annual personal subscription www.plos.org
- 25. Publishing these days You have to be "then the best journal grateful that WE would by logical extension accepted to publish be the one that accepted YOUR article. We nothing at all!" proudly reject 90% www.clinchem.org/cgi/issue of submitted articles. _pdf/backmatter_pdf/27/ We are that good 4.pdf and wanted! www.plos.org
- 26. Publishing these days Oh Please.. Can we publish another one? Yes sure. But… With this crumbling economy, prices are now up. You’ll have to pay more to publish. You’ll have to pay more to read! www.plos.org
- 27. Publishing these days We, scientists, editors, and publishers, are so addicted to a broken, old system that the more we’re aware of its limitations, the more we seem willing to “game” the system! $$ $$ €€ €€ promotion Together forever www.plos.org
- 28. Current Problems • We have to use least three different search tools to be sure we have not missed any relevant literature. www.plos.org
- 29. Current Problems • When/If we finally find the literature, we often have to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to us? www.plos.org
- 30. Current Problems • During the lengthy, painful process of submitting a paper (remember: to share exciting data with the community), we have to re-format our manuscripts every time an editor tells us to submit to another journal that (s)he thinks is more relevant for OUR work. www.plos.org
- 31. Current Problems • With submissions and resubmission, the data become old; the findings become less exciting; even worse, time and money is wasted as dozens of peers are asked to review and (often) re-review the same manuscript in different journals. www.plos.org
- 32. Current Problems • We have to pay ridiculously high amounts of money just to find out who cited us, instead of having that list directly on our papers. – Note that every homepage has had an access counter since 1993; but we usually have no way know how often our paper has been downloaded. www.plos.org
- 33. Current Problems • A one-dimensional, over-interpreted journal ranking and evaluation system The Journal Impact Factor: Introduced in 1960‟s by Eugene Garfield: ISI citations articles 2008 2006 and 2007 IF=5 means that articles published in 06/07 were cited an average of 5 times in 08. www.plos.org
- 34. Solutions? How does PLoS address these anomalies? Credits: Most slides in this part are contributed by Mark Patterson and Peter Binfield www.plos.org
- 35. PLoS Founding Board of Directors Harold Varmus PLoS Co-founder and Chairman of the Board President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Patrick O. Brown PLoS Co-founder and Board Member Howard Hughes Medical Institute & Stanford University School of Medicine Michael B. Eisen PLoS Co-founder and Board Member Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory & University of California at Berkeley www.plos.org
- 36. PLoS core principles 1. Open Access 2. Excellence 3. Scientific integrity 4. Breadth (expansion of scope) 5. Cooperation 6. Financial fairness 7. Community engagement 8. Internationalism 9. Science as a public resource Source: http://www.plos.org/about/principles.php www.plos.org
- 37. PLoS core principles 1. Open Access 2. Excellence 3. Scientific integrity 4. Breadth (expansion of scope) 5. Cooperation 6. Financial fairness 7. Community engagement 8. Internationalism 9. Science as a public resource Source: http://www.plos.org/about/principles.php www.plos.org
- 38. PLoS publishing strategy • 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 – achieve sustainability • Make the literature more useful – to scientists and the public www.plos.org
- 39. PLoS Biology October, 2003 PLoS Medicine October, 2004 PLoS Community Journals June-September, 2005 October, 2007 PLoS ONE December, 2006 www.plos.org
- 40. Growth in submissions and publications 14000 12000 10000 Publications Submissions 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 www.plos.org
- 41. Financial growth % Operating expense covered by operating revenue 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 www.plos.org
- 42. 1. PLoS and Open Access • Open Access ≠ free of charge • Open Access ≠ open science • Open Access means: – Immediate access on publication – The reader pays no charges. – In most cases, unrestricted use and reuse • Open Access is being color-coded: – Gold – Green www.plos.org
- 43. Creative Commons Attribution License Copyright: © 2004 xxxx et al. This is an open- access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Goal: overcome access barriers and encourage creative uses. http://www.creativecommons.org www.plos.org
- 44. Translation Coursepacks Photocopying Deposit in databases No permission required for any reuse Downloading data Reproduction Text mining of figures Redistribution www.plos.org
- 45. Benefits of Open Access • Public enrichment: taxpayers can see the results of what their investment in science. • Improved education: teachers and students rarely have access to subscription journals/ Unrestricted reuse helps educators prepare lectures and students deepen their assignments. • Accelerated discovery Source: PLoS Progress report- June 2009, Freely available at: http://www.plos.org/downloads/progress_report.pdf www.plos.org
- 46. Do developing countries get a waiver? • Author pays but, in PLoS journals, no author will EVER be denied publication if she or he cannot afford the fees (whether from a rich or richer country). And this message is coming from the PLoS CEO. www.plos.org
- 47. Arguments against Open Access • Sustainability of the author-pay model • Vanity publishing • Are we going to end with as many journals as authors? • Isn‟t “green OA” enough? www.plos.org
- 48. 2. PLoS ONE and an innovative view of peer review In PLoS ONE, peer review is split into two phases: • Pre-publication peer review: objectively focuses on scientific rigor, but not on subjective criteria such as importance and newsworthiness. • Post publication peer review: continuous, multi-dimensional assessment of the importance, value, and impact of the paper – Web 2.0 tools for evaluation – Coverage in classical media, blogosphere, and social networks www.plos.org
- 49. www.plos.org
- 50. PLoS ONE‟s Key Innovation – The editorial process • Editorial criteria – Scientifically rigorous – Ethical – Properly reported – Conclusions supported by the data • Editors and reviewers do not ask – How important is the work? – Which is the relevant audience? • Use online tools to sort and filter scholarly content after publication, not before www.plos.org
- 51. What else is different? • Inclusive scope – all science and medicine • Encouraging discussion and debate – at PLoS ONE: commenting, rating and annotation – elsewhere: Editorial Board discussion forum; EveryONE blog; Twitter; FriendFeed; Facebook • Streamlined production – publication on every weekday www.plos.org
- 52. PLoS ONE – statistics Year Submissions Publications % of annual PubMed 2006* 473 138 0.02% 2007 2497 1231 0.16% 2008 4401 2723 0.34% 2009 6819 4404 0.52% * Started publishing Dec 20th, 2006 Community acceptance – third largest peer-reviewed journal – 50,000 authors – 1000 Academic Editors www.plos.org
- 53. www.plos.org
- 54. 3. Article-level metrics • In the 21st century, the published unit is/should be (?) the articlenotthe journal (the song not the album, the show not the TV station, etc.) • Let the community, not just an editor and 2-4 reviewers, decide what is important and what is not www.plos.org
- 55. Researchers (authors and Institutions readers) Librarians Who cares about Funders measuring research The public impact? Publishers www.plos.org
- 56. How do we measure „impact‟? The worth of a paper tends to be judged on the basis of the impact factor of the journal in which it was published. Recommended reading: Adler, R., Ewing, J. Taylor, P. Citation statistics. A report from the International Mathematical Union. http://www.mathunion.org/publications/report/citationstatistics/ www.plos.org
- 57. How could we measure „impact‟? At the ARTICLE LEVEL, we could track: • Citations • Web usage • Expert Ratings • Social bookmarking • Community rating • Media/blog coverage • Commenting activity • and more… Current technology now makes it possible to add these metrics automatically www.plos.org
- 58. Article-Level Metrics at PLoS • A range of additional measures which provide insight into „impact‟ - not just citations and usage • Metrics/indicators at the article-level, for all journals • Not just for scholarly evaluation – also a way to filter and discover content • The idea is not new, but PLoS is the first publisher to provide this range of data transparently and immediately. Michael Jensen, The New Metrics of Scholarly Authority, Chronicle of Higher Education, June 15, 2007 www.plos.org
- 60. www.plos.org
- 61. www.plos.org
- 62. www.plos.org
- 63. www.plos.org
- 64. www.plos.org
- 65. www.plos.org
- 66. www.plos.org
- 67. Next steps for article-level metrics • More sources for each data type – Citations, blog coverage • New data sources – F1000, Mendeley • Expert analysis and tools • Broader adoption – By publishers – By tenure committees, funders etc • Develop and adhere to standards www.plos.org
- 68. Next steps for article-level metrics Metrics are good BUT NO ALTERNATIVE FOR READING www.plos.org
- 69. 4. PLoS and internationalism • 2010, PLoS International Advisory Group – http://www.plos.org/about/intladvisors.php • Internationalism involves: – authors – institutions – reviewers – editors – topics (PLoS NTD, PLoS Medicine) www.plos.org
- 70. 4. PLoS and internationalism • PLoS ONE articles (Jan 1 2010) www.plos.org
- 71. 4. PLoS and internationalism • PLoS ONE editors (Jan 1 2010) www.plos.org
- 72. Do authors from developing countries get a waiver? • In PLoS journals, no author will EVER be denied publication if she or he cannot afford the fees (whether from a rich or richer country), and you can hold me to my words. www.plos.org
- 73. Epilogue Shaking the boat Shifting the paradigm www.plos.org
- 74. Summary… PLoS and the next revolution Anomalies in the How PLoS addresses current paradigm these anomalies Access, Accessibility Open Access, CC Attribution License Literature mining, creative Open Access, CC Attribution reuse License Peer review (slow, PLoS ONE, Post-publication subjective, etc.) peer review Articlesare static: Papers, Dynamic “papers”: html- PDF files based, Web 2.0 tools, comments and notes One-dimensional, distorted Article-level, metrics multidimensional metrics High costs, financial viability PLoS ONE, Non-profit, PLoS Currents (?)www.plos.org
- 75. The current paradigm Publish or perish = Survival for the most published www.plos.org
- 76. Let‟s shift (reset?) the paradigm Do good science Publish or perish = Survival for the most published fittest www.plos.org
- 77. Declaration of “scholarly rights” • All human beings are born equal and are entitled to the following rights whether they can or cannot afford journal- subscription or article-processing fees Everyone has the right to: • access scientific knowledge freely and promptly • perform scientific research and publish its results, regardless of his/her affiliation or lack thereof • to reuse scientific data to benefit humanity, Earth, and the universe www.plos.org
- 78. Thank you • Thank you for your time and attention. I would like to get your feedback and questions. • contact: ramy.aziz@salmonella.org • azizrk on Twitter www.plos.org