Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II

30,524

Published on

Updated and edited version of …

Updated and edited version of
http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-schorarly-publishing-today
Updated again on 26-06-2009
and again in July 2011.

5 Comments
73 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total Views
30,524
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
13
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
529
Comments
5
Likes
73
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Whatiswrongwithscholarlypublishingtoday?<br />Björn Brembs, Freie Universität Berlin<br />http://brembs.net<br />http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii<br />
  • 2. Publishing yesterday…<br />1665: Onejournal: Philosophical Transactionsofthe Royal Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)<br />
  • 3. Publishing Today<br /><ul><li>24,000 scholarlyjournals
  • 4. 1.5 millionpublications/year
  • 5. 3% annualgrowth
  • 6. 1 millionauthors
  • 7. 10-15 millionreadersat &gt;10,000 institutions
  • 8. 1.5 billiondownloads/year</li></ul>Source: Mabe MA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22<br />
  • 9. Functionality<br />19thcenturypublishingfor a 21stcenturyscientificcommunity<br />
  • 10. Functionality<br />At least four different searchtoolstobesure not to miss any relevant literature?<br />
  • 11. Functionality<br />When we finally find the literature, we have to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to us?<br />
  • 12. Functionality<br />We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?<br />
  • 13. Functionality<br />We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?<br />
  • 14. Functionality<br />Every homepage has had an access counter since 1993 but we don’t know how often our paper has been downloaded?<br />
  • 15. Functionality<br />Nothing happens when we click on the reference after &quot;we performed the experiments as described previously&quot;?<br />
  • 16. Hyperlinks<br />Nothing happens when we click on the reference after &quot;we performed the experiments as described previously&quot;?<br />First demonstration: 1968<br />WWW: 1989<br />Stanford Research Institute: NLS<br />Tim Berners-Lee: CERN<br />
  • 17. Think…<br />
  • 18. Why?<br />Who‘stoblamethatourpublishingsystemis so lame?<br />
  • 19. We, thescientists!<br />We decide how and where to publish<br />
  • 20. We, thescientists!<br />We are producers and consumers in personal union<br />
  • 21. We, thescientists!<br />We chose to outsource scientific communication to publishers<br />
  • 22. Publishers<br />A publicgood in private hands<br />
  • 23. Elsevier<br />Name from Dutch publisher (1580): “House of Elzevir”<br />250,000 articles per year in 2000 journals<br />7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members and 300,000 reviewers are working for Elsevier<br />Part of Reed Elsevier group<br />
  • 24. Elsevier<br />
  • 25. Elsevier<br />Rofecoxib=Vioxx (Merck)<br />
  • 26.
  • 27. Elsevier<br />“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”<br />“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “<br />The Scientist<br />“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “<br />Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian<br />“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”<br />Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier&apos;s Health Sciences Division<br />
  • 28. Elsevier<br />“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”<br />“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “<br />The Scientist<br />“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “<br />Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian<br />“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”<br />Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier&apos;s Health Sciences Division<br />
  • 29. Elsevier<br />“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”<br />“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “<br />The Scientist<br />“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “<br />Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian<br />“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”<br />Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier&apos;s Health Sciences Division<br />
  • 30. Elsevier<br />“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”<br />“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “<br />The Scientist<br />“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “<br />Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian<br />“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”<br />Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier&apos;s Health Sciences Division<br />
  • 31. The Big Three (2009/10)<br />(includes Springer)<br />Source:<br />http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/127-1.pdf<br />
  • 32. Profits<br />
  • 33. Journals Crisis (not just Elsevier!)<br />% Change<br />Modifiedfrom ARL: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstats06.pdf, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf<br />
  • 34. Subscription Pricing<br />KIT Library<br />10 Most expensive journal subscriptions 2010/11<br />http://www.bibliothek.kit.edu/cms/teuerste-zeitschriften.php<br />
  • 35. Subscription Pricing<br />SOURCE:LJ PERIODICALS PRICE SURVEY 2010<br />
  • 36. Subscription Pricing<br />MPG: 18 Mio €/y forliterature. 95% tothethreemainpublishers.<br />UK: 94.6 Mio £/y in subscription (2003/4)<br />
  • 37. What a magnificent ship! What makes it go?<br />Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson<br />
  • 38. Library responses<br />Request increased budgets<br />Cut subscriptions<br />Collective purchase of electronic journals<br />Rely on document delivery or ILL<br />UC: boycott NPG!<br />Ray English <br />
  • 39. Scientific Publishing:<br />
  • 40. Survey: Journal Access<br />David Nicholas<br />
  • 41. Publishing yesterday…<br />
  • 42. Scholarship as a Public Good <br />Funded by Taxpayers<br />
  • 43. Scholarship as a Public Good <br />Supported publicly<br />
  • 44. Scholarship as a Public Good <br />Created in the non-profit sector<br />
  • 45. Scholarship as a Public Good <br />No profit for article authors<br />
  • 46. Scholarship as a Public Good <br />Profit for corporate publishers<br />
  • 47. Scholarship<br />A Public Good in Private Hands<br />
  • 48. Scientific Publishing:<br />
  • 49. Think…<br />
  • 50. Onesolution: Open Access<br />“Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” <br />Peter Suber<br />
  • 51. Open Access<br />Gold OA<br />Publishing in an Open Access journal<br />Currently 6722peer-reviewed open access journals listed in the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals doaj.org <br />Green OA<br />Self-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed Central<br />Over 1400 open repositories already established world-wide<br />
  • 52. Digital<br />
  • 53. But: Everything’s Gone Digital! <br />www.scopus.com<br />www.pubmed.gov<br />http://ukpmc.ac.uk<br />isiknowledge.com<br />scholar.google.com<br />Duncan Hull<br />
  • 54. Welcome to Digital <br />Isolation<br />different disciplines – different information silos<br />
  • 55. Welcome to Digital <br />Impersonal and unsociable<br />“who the hell are you”?<br />Where are “my” papers?<br />What are my friends and colleagues reading?<br />What are the experts reading?<br />What is popular this week / month / year?<br />
  • 56. Welcome to Digital <br />Obsolete models of publication<br />Not everything fits publication-sized holes<br />Micro-attribution<br />Mega-attribution<br />Digital contributions (databases, software, wikis/blogs?)<br />
  • 57. Welcome to Digital <br />Cold<br />Identity of publications and authors is inadequate<br />
  • 58. Open Access<br />Identity Crisis<br />Howcan I find anything?<br />
  • 59. Identity Crisis: Which publication?<br />http://pubmed.gov/18974831<br />http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974831<br />http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?accid=pmcA2568856<br />http://ukpmc.ac.uk/picrender.cgi?artid=1687256&amp;blobtype=pdf<br />http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204<br />http://www.dbkgroup.org/Papers/hull_defrost_ploscb08.pdf<br />http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204<br />One paper, many URIs. Disambiguation algorithms rely on getting metadata for each<br />Big problem for libraries is these redundant duplicates<br />Matching can be done by Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and PubMed ID (PMID); <br />these are frequently absent &lt; 5% (Kevin Emamy, citeUlike)<br />Duncan Hull<br />
  • 60. Identity Crisis: Whichauthor?<br />
  • 61. Identity Crisis: Whichtopic?<br />
  • 62. Think…<br />
  • 63. Onesolution: Unique identifiers<br />Difficult with fragmented information silos<br />
  • 64. Onesolution: Unique identifiers<br />Several initiatives<br />
  • 65. Onesolution: Unique identifiers<br />Examples: PubMedID, DOI, ORCID, Semantic Web<br />
  • 66. ORCID<br />
  • 67. Semantic Web<br />Machine-readablemeaning<br />Technically non-trivial<br />Promising progress<br />Tim Berners-Lee<br />http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/Overview.html<br />
  • 68. The Semantic Web for Dummies (like me)<br />URIUniform Resource Identifier, like:<br /> http://id.archeology.edu/weapon/spear<br /> + XMLCustomized tags, like:<br />&lt;spear&gt;Lance&lt;/spear&gt;<br /> + RDFRelations, in triples, like: <br />(Lance) (is_spear_of) (Longinus)<br /> + OntologiesHierarchies of concepts, like<br />weapon -&gt; projectile -&gt; spear-&gt; Lance<br /> + Inference rulesLike:<br />If (person) (owns) (spear), then (person) (throws) (spear)<br /> = Semantic Web!<br />
  • 69. Digital dystopia<br />Information (Overload) Crisis<br />Or filter failure?<br />
  • 70. More scientists, morepublications<br />
  • 71. Information Crisis<br />1.5 millionpublications per year in 24,000 journals<br />
  • 72. Information Crisis<br />Finding ‘my’ publications is impossible!<br />
  • 73. Information Crisis<br />PublishorPerish: numberofpublications<br />
  • 74. Information Crisis<br />60-300 applicants per tenure-trackposition<br />
  • 75. Information Crisis<br />Reading enoughpublicationsisimpossible!<br />
  • 76. Think…<br />
  • 77. Onesolution: JournalRank<br />Source Normalized Impact per Paper<br />Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor<br />Eigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters)<br />ScImago JournalRank (SJR)<br />Scopus: SNIP, SJR<br />
  • 78. Onesolution: JournalRank<br />Onlyreadpublicationsfromhigh-rankingjournals<br />
  • 79. Job applications<br />
  • 80. Job applicationinstructions<br />Publikationstätigkeit<br />(vollständige Publikationsliste, darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in, Seniorautor/in, Impact-Punkte insgesamt und in den letzten 5 Jahren, darunter jeweils gesondert ausgewiesen als Erst- und Seniorautor/in, persönlicher Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index nach Web of Science) über alle Arbeiten)<br />Publications:<br />Completelistofpublications, including original researchpapersasfirstauthor, seniorauthor, impactpoints total and in the last 5 years, withmarkedfirstand last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index accordingto Web of Science) for all publications.<br />
  • 81. Metrics<br />Lies, damn lies andbibliometrics<br />
  • 82. Show of hands:<br />Who knows what the IF is?<br />Who uses the IF to pick a journal (rate a candidate, etc.)?<br />Who knows how the IF is calculated and from what data?<br />
  • 83. The Impact Factor<br />Introduced in 1960’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI<br />citations<br />articles<br />2008 and 2009<br />2010<br />IF=5<br />Articles published in 08/09 <br />were cited an average of 5 times in 10.<br />
  • 84. The Impact Factor<br />Journal X IF 2010=<br />All citationsfromTR indexedjournalsin 2010 topapers in journal X<br />Numberofcitablearticlespublished in journal X in 2008/9<br />€30,000-130,000/yearsubscriptionrates<br />Covers ~11,500 journals (Scopuscovers ~16,500)<br />
  • 85. Main Problems withthe IF<br />Negotiable<br />Irreproducible<br />Mathematicallyunsound<br />
  • 86. Negotiable<br />PLoSMedicine, IF 2-11 (8.4)(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)<br />CurrentBiology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003<br />BoughtbyCell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…<br />
  • 87.
  • 88. Not Reproducible<br />Rockefeller University Press boughttheirdatafrom Thomson Reuters<br />Upto 19% deviationfrompublishedrecords<br />Second dataset still not correct<br />Rossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 179, No. 6, 1091-1092 http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091<br />
  • 89. Not MathematicallySound<br />Left-skeweddistributions<br />Weakcorrelationof individual articlecitation rate withjournal IF<br />Seglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)<br />http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497<br />
  • 90. Lord Kelvin<br />“Nearly all the grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement”<br />
  • 91. Job applications<br />
  • 92. Message:<br />Where you publish is more important to us than what you publish!<br />
  • 93. Think…<br />
  • 94. Other solution: social bookmarks<br />refworks.com<br />zotero.org<br />mendeley.com<br />hubmed.org<br />2collab.com<br />connotea.org<br />citeulike.org<br />Re-couple metadata that has be de-coupled from data<br />www.mekentosj.com<br />“iTunes for PDF files”<br />
  • 95. Article-level Metrics<br />Your article:<br />Received X citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science)<br />It was viewed X times, placing it in the top Y% of all articles in this journal/community<br />It received X Comments<br />It was bookmarked X times in Social Bookmarking sites<br />Experts in your community rated it as X, Y, Z<br />It was discussed on X ‘respected’ blogs <br />It appeared in X, Y, Z International News media<br />Peter Binfield<br />
  • 96.
  • 97.
  • 98.
  • 99. PLoS ONE<br />4.5 years old<br />Almost doubling in volume each year<br />2007: 1,231 articles<br />2008: 2,722 articles<br />2009: 4,310 articles<br />2010: 6,784 articles<br />2011: &gt;12,000 articles<br />Largest journal in the world<br />Over 1,000 Academic editors<br />More than 30,000 authors<br />Fully peer reviewed <br />but the review / acceptance process does not concern itself with ‘impact’, ‘novelty’ (or other subjective measures)<br />
  • 100. Publications by PLoS ONE per quarter since launch<br />
  • 101. Albert Einstein<br />&quot;Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted.&quot; <br />
  • 102. Metrics<br />Won‘tgoaway<br />Shouldalwaysbe a last resort<br />Theyaremuchtoovaluabletobesatisfiedwiththecurrentpitifulstateofaffairs<br />Let‘smakethemasgoodaswepossiblycan!<br />
  • 103. My Digital Utopia:<br />No more publishers – libraries archive everything according to a world-wide standard<br />Single semantic, decentralized database of literature and data<br />Personalized filtering<br />Peer-review administrated by an independent body<br />Link typology for text/text, data/data and text/data links (“citations”)<br />Semantic Text/Datamining<br />All the metrics you (don’t) want (but need)<br />Tagging, bookmarking, etc.<br />Unique contributor IDs with attribution/reputation system (teaching, reviewing, curating, blogging, etc.)<br />Technically feasible today (almost)<br />http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii<br />

×