• Like
  • Save
Open Access in the biomedical field - the rise of PloS ONE by Nathalie Duchange
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Open Access in the biomedical field - the rise of PloS ONE by Nathalie Duchange

on

  • 563 views

To celebrate the Open Access Week 2012, MyScienceWork in partnership with UNESCO and UPMC organize for the first time in Paris, two events dedicated to Open Access. ...

To celebrate the Open Access Week 2012, MyScienceWork in partnership with UNESCO and UPMC organize for the first time in Paris, two events dedicated to Open Access.
Discover here the presentation of Nathalie Duchange (INSERM)

Statistics

Views

Total Views
563
Views on SlideShare
559
Embed Views
4

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

1 Embed 4

http://storify.com 4

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Open Access in the biomedical field - the rise of PloS ONE by Nathalie Duchange Open Access in the biomedical field - the rise of PloS ONE by Nathalie Duchange Presentation Transcript

    • Open Accessin the biomedical fieldThe rise of PLoS ONENathalie DuchangeInsermOctober 25, 2012
    • International movement born in the 1990sto allow the free dissemination of publicly-funded research
    • TWO GREENCOMPLEMENTARY OPEN REPOSITORIES ROUTES (institutional and disciplinary) Authors self-archive their scientific output GOLD AUTHOR-PAY TO PUBLISH- MODEL (Journals that provide OA) Articles are free to read, share, distribute, results may be re-used (authors keep their rights)
    • Specificities of the biomedical field thatimpact on both routes to Open Access
    • Central role of publication1 « Publish or Perish » Evaluation is based on publication in high quality peer-reviewed journals Journals’ quality is measured by the impact factor Impact: open repositories in life sicences collect mainly published articles
    • Conditions for archiving in Open Repositories depend on publishers and the extent of authors’rights transferred
    • A free open repository of biomedical and life sciences journal literature: PubMed Central2 Launched in 2000 by the U.S. National Institutes of Healths National Library of Medicine Direct access to the article (NIH/NLM) from PubMed (free ressource of citations) Impact: a reference in the field
    • Network : PubMed Central International UK PubMed Central to become Europe PubMed Central in november 2012 www.ebi.ac.uk/Information/News/press-releases/press-release-13072012-Europe_PMC.html
    • From HAL to PubMed Central Entry by dedicatedHAL is the French national portals, either multi-diciplinary and institutional, multi-institutional disciplinary or HAL-Inserm is the institutional Open Repository thematic portal for Inserm Part of HAL biomedical articles are transferred to PubMed Central (Depending on the publishers)
    • Gold RouteThe rise of Open Access Journals since 2000
    • What full Open Access means ?http://www.arl.org/sparc/bm~doc/howopenisit_open-review.pdf
    • PLoS: an Open Access Publisher Public Library of Science is a non profit publisher founded by leading scientists 7 high impact factor journals PLoS Biology, PLoS Computational Biology, PLoS Genetics, PLoS Medicine, PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases. PLoS One, PLoS Pathogens. Revolution in the publishing model: introducing PLoS One
    • “Peer review is ostensibly one of the central pillars of modern science. A paper is not taken seriously by other scientists unless it is published in a “peerPLoS ONE reviewed” journal.” “But the truth is that peer review as practiced in the Revisiting 21st century biomedical research poisons science. It isPeer-Review conservative, cumbersome, capricious and intrusive.” Michael Eisen, co-funder of PLoS www.michaeleisen.org/blog/?p=694 PLoS ONE Peer Review: - Papers have to be technically sound - Importance of the paper is let to the readearship
    • Acceptance rate: 70% Impact Factor > 4 Fast publication Received: July 12, 2012; Accepted: September 14, 2012; Published: October 17, 2012 Metrics PLoS ONEAttractivity for researchers
    • Will Open Access publishing kill quality? « Both scientists recently published in a PLOS open access journal with papers related to the research for which they were recognized by the Nobel Committee » « Since 2009, Shinya Yamanaka has published 9 papers in PLOS ONE »http://blogs.plos.org/blog/2012/10/08/two-plos-authors-awarded-nobel-prize-in-medicine/
    • Conclusion Opt for Green + GoldMost research organisations and funders have established OA mandates and/or policies that support both routes Gold OA accounts for approximatively 10% of the published articles The pay-to-publish model is not without financial risk
    • “The greatest benefit of openaccess publishing is wideningthe debate on scientificresearch; whats free to readand republish is also free todiscuss, dispute, and learnfrom” Kamran Abbasi J R Soc Med. 2012 May; 105(5): 185.
    • To learn more
    • Thank you for your attention ?