2013 CrossRef Annual Meeting Agile Publishing Kristen Ratan


Published on

The manifesto behind agile development methodology states that the highest priority is to satisfy the customer, welcome change, iterate frequently and promote dialog. If we were to adopt these principles, what would scholarly communication look like?

Published in: Technology, Education
1 Comment
  • Links to videos Kristen Ratan used in her presentation:




    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Agile manifesto in 2001, came along wit hnew languages and web frameworks like Ruby on Rails, PhythonDjango, as well as an increase in oepn source software, and the whole notion of not reinventing wheels but collectively building on work
  • The first stage of conducting research data and analyzing is rapidly evolving. There has been a rise in open and collaborative approaches, grants specifically requireing collaboration, and sites and services that facilitate that. More and more researchers are sharing data early and often.
  • Evolutionary biologists
  • Researchers are doing it for themselves
  • Interstingly, authors may be underatking novel methods of gathering and sharing data, but they continue to set all that aside, open up a blank Word document and start typing a paper much as they have for decades.
  • Lots of experiments, crowd-sourcing, peerage, Rubriq
  • No change to current peer review – this is an alternate systemParallel, separate, different than how peer review works now. (hard to get people to understand this)“Structured Peer Evaluation” just an internal name – leads to initialism “SPE” + too long, clunky, naming still TBDNOT intended as a replacement for peer review. Different! But if successful will make peer review faster, easier to find reviewers, and provide far more data about the factors researchers need about published works.
  • Interest: do you care about this work?Importance: how important is this?Merit: Do you believe this work?Clarity: Did they present it according to community norms?Note: no where in the tool do we ask questions. We present a context and allow the peer evaluator to frame a graded response within that context. Intentional – discuss question/framing workload issues
  • Perhaps the scariest trend of allAuthoring and publishing are becoming oneMany ways to output work
  • Reading is no longer passive:Fanfic – way young people are reading now. Sharing books w/ each other. 4.7M uploads, 60% growth in 2012Booktype – move from reader to collaborative knowledge producers
  • The site saw 400 million unique visitors and 37 billion page views, two numbers that place it easily in the world's most trafficked sites. Additionally, the site says there were 30 million posts made to the site, and 4 billion up and down votes were made to said posts. Reddit: the rise of Reddit is 'facilitating conversation in interesting ways'like no other service online.  it's success points to a few things weknew: people like being pseudo-anonymous, they like having some levelof interactivity or input into the conversation, large crowds whenorganized well can create some great filtering systems, and peoplewill give tons of effort for magic Internet points.
  • This is why they continue to come. They have to.
  • Break down the silos and offer more cross-publisher services (text mining, discovery, submissions)REduce the overhead to sharing researchImprove peer reviewImproved data sharing and reporducibilityWork on the things that matter to our core stakeholders – researchers (and the people who fund them)
  • 2013 CrossRef Annual Meeting Agile Publishing Kristen Ratan

    1. 1. PLOS Agile Publishing Kristen Fisher Ratan CrossRef Annual Meeting 13 November 2013
    2. 2. What is Agile? The philosophy behind agile software development: • satisfy the customer • welcome change • iterate frequently ` • build on a growing base • promote dialog If we were to adopt these principles, what would scholarly communication look like? 2
    3. 3. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 3
    4. 4. Agile Publishing • Researching, data creation: Collaborative, open, updated • Authoring: Early, versioned and iterative • Assessment: Rapid crowd assessment Publishing, producing: sharing, immediate • Reading: skimming, searching, word of mouth • Curation: collaborative, crowd-sourced, annotation, disaggregated 4
    5. 5. What is Publishing? 5
    6. 6. Reporting 6
    7. 7. Is publishing useful? 7
    8. 8. Stages • • • • • • Research, data analysis Authoring Assessment Publishing, producing Reading Curating, annotating 8
    9. 9. Research / Data 9
    10. 10. Github as collaboration tool 10
    11. 11. Figshare as data repository 11
    12. 12. F1000 Research Data plotting 12
    13. 13. Anthony Salvagno’s open lab notebook
    14. 14. 14
    15. 15. Authoring 15
    16. 16. Authoring tools out there • • • • • • • Booktype Subversion Authorea Fiduswriter WriteLatex ShareLatex Lanyrd 16
    17. 17. Authorea 17
    18. 18. Booktype platform for Book Sprints 18
    19. 19. Assessment 19
    20. 20. PLOS Labs: Alternate Evaluation • Design and testing of novel evaluation system: – Simple and Fast – Structured – Transparent with open data – Potential for larger number of peers providing feedback – Can be collected pre- or post publication – General to scientific research outputs
    21. 21. Collection areas Factors connected to journal titles: 1 Personal interest 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge Factors connected to traditional peer review: 3 Validity and Scientific Merit 4 Writing, Presentation, and Clarity
    22. 22. 2 Importance to Science & Shared Knowledge This work makes little to no contribution to science knowledge This work makes a minor contribution to the field of study If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: I think this work was not worth doing This work makes a significant contribution to science knowledge This work advances the field If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: This work is a major scientific breakthrough This work has an important or novel method This work will lead to reinterpretation of wellestablished findings This work opens a new area of inquiry in the field This work has an important or significant conclusion:
    23. 23. Publishing /Producing 23
    24. 24. Medium.com - blogging platform 24
    25. 25. When authoring and publishing collide 25
    26. 26. Authoring, Producing, & annotating 26
    27. 27. Reading 27
    28. 28. “If you put an author and a reader in a room together would the author read her article to the reader?” -John Sack 28
    29. 29. HighWire user research Reading Isn’t What It Used To Be: • 2002: “I read 3-4 journals regularly” • 2012: “I read 8-10 journals regularly” Huh? HighWire | Stanford University 29
    30. 30. Email TOC is reading HighWire | Stanford University 30
    31. 31. Adam Hyde on Readers 31
    32. 32. Curation/Annotation/ Collaboration 32
    33. 33. Wikipedia- versioning done well 33
    34. 34. Reddit: good site design isn’t everything 400M users 37B page views 34
    35. 35. PubMed Commons 35
    36. 36. Hypothes.is 36
    37. 37. With all these rapid and immediate forms of authoring, curating and collaborating, will future generations of scientists will wait for us to publish anything? 37
    38. 38. Reputation 38
    39. 39. Scholars need • • • • • • • Publications Brand-named journals Impact factors Citations H-index CVs Tenure/promotion 39
    40. 40. ALM Reports alm.plos.org Allows researchers, institutions & funders to: • create a report of the ALMs for a single or set of PLOS articles • view a summary of the metrics along with an accompanying set of data visualizations. Search based on: • keyword • author name & country • affiliation • publication date • subject areas • funder 40
    41. 41. ALM Reports Metrics Visualizations 41
    42. 42. Stackoverflow: emerging reputation systems 42
    43. 43. Open Source Report Card 43
    44. 44. Scholars will organically replace the journal with what they find more useful 44
    45. 45. http://www.wordle.net/create kratan@plos.org @kristenratan 45