• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
 

What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II

on

  • 32,312 views

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.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
32,312
Views on SlideShare
29,274
Embed Views
3,038

Actions

Likes
69
Downloads
501
Comments
5

42 Embeds 3,038

http://blog.ketyov.com 1399
http://bjoern.brembs.net 846
http://ways.org 149
http://alif.tumblr.com 110
http://www.scoop.it 82
http://cienciabrasil.blogspot.com 67
http://www.euroscience.org 60
http://www.bagtheweb.com 55
http://infobib.de 42
http://coinac.blogspot.com.es 39
http://www.slideshare.net 30
http://blog.euroscience.org 16
https://twitter.com 16
http://twitter.com 14
http://coinac.blogspot.com 13
http://a0.twimg.com 12
http://cienciabrasil.blogspot.com.br 8
http://safe.tumblr.com 8
http://translate.googleusercontent.com 7
http://us-w1.rockmelt.com 7
http://alifwahid.me 7
http://52brain.com 5
http://blogarchive.brembs.net 5
https://twimg0-a.akamaihd.net 4
http://paper.li 4
http://www.twylah.com 4
http://webloria.loria.fr 4
http://www.cienciabrasil.blogspot.com 3
http://www.newsblur.com 3
http://fundscience.org 3
http://tweetedtimes.com 3
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com 2
http://act.hypotheses.org 2
https://si0.twimg.com 1
https://blackboard.gwu.edu 1
http://www.linkedin.com 1
http://hauschke.fh-hannover.de 1
http://www.rxx.co.il 1
http://www.health.medicbd.com 1
http://brembs.net 1
https://learn.scu.edu.au 1
http://64.233.163.132 1
More...

Accessibility

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

CC Attribution-NonCommercial LicenseCC Attribution-NonCommercial License

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel

15 of 5 previous next Post a comment

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Excellent slideshow. I've taken a number of the framework graphics and adapted to my startup
    Sharika
    http://winkhealth.com http://financewink.com
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Most excellent, thank you for relicensing!
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Is now CC licensed.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • Any chance of CC licensing on this? Plenty I'd like to reuse. :)
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
  • On slide 5: Pubfeed ( http://pubfeed.cs.toronto.edu/ ) is worth a look as a potentially very useful aggregator of incoming literature based on a seed corpus. Currently with numerous rough edges, but the folks there are quick in responding to feedback, so it is constantly improving.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II Presentation Transcript

    • Whatiswrongwithscholarlypublishingtoday?
      Björn Brembs, Freie Universität Berlin
      http://brembs.net
      http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii
    • Publishing yesterday…
      1665: Onejournal: Philosophical Transactionsofthe Royal Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)
    • Publishing Today
      • 24,000 scholarlyjournals
      • 1.5 millionpublications/year
      • 3% annualgrowth
      • 1 millionauthors
      • 10-15 millionreadersat >10,000 institutions
      • 1.5 billiondownloads/year
      Source: Mabe MA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22
    • Functionality
      19thcenturypublishingfor a 21stcenturyscientificcommunity
    • Functionality
      At least four different searchtoolstobesure not to miss any relevant literature?
    • Functionality
      When we finally find the literature, we have to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to us?
    • Functionality
      We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?
    • Functionality
      We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?
    • Functionality
      Every homepage has had an access counter since 1993 but we don’t know how often our paper has been downloaded?
    • Functionality
      Nothing happens when we click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"?
    • Hyperlinks
      Nothing happens when we click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"?
      First demonstration: 1968
      WWW: 1989
      Stanford Research Institute: NLS
      Tim Berners-Lee: CERN
    • Think…
    • Why?
      Who‘stoblamethatourpublishingsystemis so lame?
    • We, thescientists!
      We decide how and where to publish
    • We, thescientists!
      We are producers and consumers in personal union
    • We, thescientists!
      We chose to outsource scientific communication to publishers
    • Publishers
      A publicgood in private hands
    • Elsevier
      Name from Dutch publisher (1580): “House of Elzevir”
      250,000 articles per year in 2000 journals
      7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members and 300,000 reviewers are working for Elsevier
      Part of Reed Elsevier group
    • Elsevier
    • Elsevier
      Rofecoxib=Vioxx (Merck)
    • Elsevier
      “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.”
      “It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “
      The Scientist
      “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. “
      Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
      “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.”
      Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
    • Elsevier
      “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.”
      “It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “
      The Scientist
      “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. “
      Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
      “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.”
      Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
    • Elsevier
      “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.”
      “It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “
      The Scientist
      “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. “
      Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
      “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.”
      Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
    • Elsevier
      “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.”
      “It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “
      The Scientist
      “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. “
      Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
      “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.”
      Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
    • The Big Three (2009/10)
      (includes Springer)
      Source:
      http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/127-1.pdf
    • Profits
    • Journals Crisis (not just Elsevier!)
      % Change
      Modifiedfrom ARL: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstats06.pdf, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf
    • Subscription Pricing
      KIT Library
      10 Most expensive journal subscriptions 2010/11
      http://www.bibliothek.kit.edu/cms/teuerste-zeitschriften.php
    • Subscription Pricing
      SOURCE:LJ PERIODICALS PRICE SURVEY 2010
    • Subscription Pricing
      MPG: 18 Mio €/y forliterature. 95% tothethreemainpublishers.
      UK: 94.6 Mio £/y in subscription (2003/4)
    • What a magnificent ship! What makes it go?
      Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson
    • Library responses
      Request increased budgets
      Cut subscriptions
      Collective purchase of electronic journals
      Rely on document delivery or ILL
      UC: boycott NPG!
      Ray English
    • Scientific Publishing:
    • Survey: Journal Access
      David Nicholas
    • Publishing yesterday…
    • Scholarship as a Public Good
      Funded by Taxpayers
    • Scholarship as a Public Good
      Supported publicly
    • Scholarship as a Public Good
      Created in the non-profit sector
    • Scholarship as a Public Good
      No profit for article authors
    • Scholarship as a Public Good
      Profit for corporate publishers
    • Scholarship
      A Public Good in Private Hands
    • Scientific Publishing:
    • Think…
    • Onesolution: Open Access
      “Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.”
      Peter Suber
    • Open Access
      Gold OA
      Publishing in an Open Access journal
      Currently 6722peer-reviewed open access journals listed in the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals doaj.org
      Green OA
      Self-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed Central
      Over 1400 open repositories already established world-wide
    • Digital
    • But: Everything’s Gone Digital!
      www.scopus.com
      www.pubmed.gov
      http://ukpmc.ac.uk
      isiknowledge.com
      scholar.google.com
      Duncan Hull
    • Welcome to Digital
      Isolation
      different disciplines – different information silos
    • Welcome to Digital
      Impersonal and unsociable
      “who the hell are you”?
      Where are “my” papers?
      What are my friends and colleagues reading?
      What are the experts reading?
      What is popular this week / month / year?
    • Welcome to Digital
      Obsolete models of publication
      Not everything fits publication-sized holes
      Micro-attribution
      Mega-attribution
      Digital contributions (databases, software, wikis/blogs?)
    • Welcome to Digital
      Cold
      Identity of publications and authors is inadequate
    • Open Access
      Identity Crisis
      Howcan I find anything?
    • Identity Crisis: Which publication?
      http://pubmed.gov/18974831
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974831
      http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?accid=pmcA2568856
      http://ukpmc.ac.uk/picrender.cgi?artid=1687256&blobtype=pdf
      http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204
      http://www.dbkgroup.org/Papers/hull_defrost_ploscb08.pdf
      http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
      One paper, many URIs. Disambiguation algorithms rely on getting metadata for each
      Big problem for libraries is these redundant duplicates
      Matching can be done by Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and PubMed ID (PMID);
      these are frequently absent < 5% (Kevin Emamy, citeUlike)
      Duncan Hull
    • Identity Crisis: Whichauthor?
    • Identity Crisis: Whichtopic?
    • Think…
    • Onesolution: Unique identifiers
      Difficult with fragmented information silos
    • Onesolution: Unique identifiers
      Several initiatives
    • Onesolution: Unique identifiers
      Examples: PubMedID, DOI, ORCID, Semantic Web
    • ORCID
    • Semantic Web
      Machine-readablemeaning
      Technically non-trivial
      Promising progress
      Tim Berners-Lee
      http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/Overview.html
    • The Semantic Web for Dummies (like me)
      URIUniform Resource Identifier, like:
      http://id.archeology.edu/weapon/spear
      + XMLCustomized tags, like:
      <spear>Lance</spear>
      + RDFRelations, in triples, like:
      (Lance) (is_spear_of) (Longinus)
      + OntologiesHierarchies of concepts, like
      weapon -> projectile -> spear-> Lance
      + Inference rulesLike:
      If (person) (owns) (spear), then (person) (throws) (spear)
      = Semantic Web!
    • Digital dystopia
      Information (Overload) Crisis
      Or filter failure?
    • More scientists, morepublications
    • Information Crisis
      1.5 millionpublications per year in 24,000 journals
    • Information Crisis
      Finding ‘my’ publications is impossible!
    • Information Crisis
      PublishorPerish: numberofpublications
    • Information Crisis
      60-300 applicants per tenure-trackposition
    • Information Crisis
      Reading enoughpublicationsisimpossible!
    • Think…
    • Onesolution: JournalRank
      Source Normalized Impact per Paper
      Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor
      Eigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters)
      ScImago JournalRank (SJR)
      Scopus: SNIP, SJR
    • Onesolution: JournalRank
      Onlyreadpublicationsfromhigh-rankingjournals
    • Job applications
    • Job applicationinstructions
      Publikationstätigkeit
      (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)
      Publications:
      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.
    • Metrics
      Lies, damn lies andbibliometrics
    • Show of hands:
      Who knows what the IF is?
      Who uses the IF to pick a journal (rate a candidate, etc.)?
      Who knows how the IF is calculated and from what data?
    • The Impact Factor
      Introduced in 1960’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
      citations
      articles
      2008 and 2009
      2010
      IF=5
      Articles published in 08/09
      were cited an average of 5 times in 10.
    • The Impact Factor
      Journal X IF 2010=
      All citationsfromTR indexedjournalsin 2010 topapers in journal X
      Numberofcitablearticlespublished in journal X in 2008/9
      €30,000-130,000/yearsubscriptionrates
      Covers ~11,500 journals (Scopuscovers ~16,500)
    • Main Problems withthe IF
      Negotiable
      Irreproducible
      Mathematicallyunsound
    • Negotiable
      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)
      CurrentBiology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003
      BoughtbyCell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…
    • Not Reproducible
      Rockefeller University Press boughttheirdatafrom Thomson Reuters
      Upto 19% deviationfrompublishedrecords
      Second dataset still not correct
      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
    • Not MathematicallySound
      Left-skeweddistributions
      Weakcorrelationof individual articlecitation rate withjournal IF
      Seglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)
      http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
    • Lord Kelvin
      “Nearly all the grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement”
    • Job applications
    • Message:
      Where you publish is more important to us than what you publish!
    • Think…
    • Other solution: social bookmarks
      refworks.com
      zotero.org
      mendeley.com
      hubmed.org
      2collab.com
      connotea.org
      citeulike.org
      Re-couple metadata that has be de-coupled from data
      www.mekentosj.com
      “iTunes for PDF files”
    • Article-level Metrics
      Your article:
      Received X citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science)
      It was viewed X times, placing it in the top Y% of all articles in this journal/community
      It received X Comments
      It was bookmarked X times in Social Bookmarking sites
      Experts in your community rated it as X, Y, Z
      It was discussed on X ‘respected’ blogs
      It appeared in X, Y, Z International News media
      Peter Binfield
    • PLoS ONE
      4.5 years old
      Almost doubling in volume each year
      2007: 1,231 articles
      2008: 2,722 articles
      2009: 4,310 articles
      2010: 6,784 articles
      2011: >12,000 articles
      Largest journal in the world
      Over 1,000 Academic editors
      More than 30,000 authors
      Fully peer reviewed
      but the review / acceptance process does not concern itself with ‘impact’, ‘novelty’ (or other subjective measures)
    • Publications by PLoS ONE per quarter since launch
    • Albert Einstein
      "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
    • Metrics
      Won‘tgoaway
      Shouldalwaysbe a last resort
      Theyaremuchtoovaluabletobesatisfiedwiththecurrentpitifulstateofaffairs
      Let‘smakethemasgoodaswepossiblycan!
    • My Digital Utopia:
      No more publishers – libraries archive everything according to a world-wide standard
      Single semantic, decentralized database of literature and data
      Personalized filtering
      Peer-review administrated by an independent body
      Link typology for text/text, data/data and text/data links (“citations”)
      Semantic Text/Datamining
      All the metrics you (don’t) want (but need)
      Tagging, bookmarking, etc.
      Unique contributor IDs with attribution/reputation system (teaching, reviewing, curating, blogging, etc.)
      Technically feasible today (almost)
      http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii