Rethinking the Functions of a Journal - some case studies from PLoS by Mark Patterson

3,625 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
3 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,625
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
21
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
42
Comments
0
Likes
3
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Rethinking the Functions of a Journal - some case studies from PLoS by Mark Patterson

  1. 1. www.plos.org “Re-engineering the scientific journal” Mark Patterson, Director of Publishing EDIT Meeting, Copenhagen: Oct, 2010 Committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a public resource
  2. 2. www.plos.org The functions of journals • Registration – Who’s done what and when? • Certification – Is the work sound? • Dissemination – The right information to the people who need it • Preservation – Archiving for future generations Roosendaal and Geurts
  3. 3. www.flickr.com/photos/sewpixie/2374778051/ Journals are a giant sorting mechanism Organization
  4. 4. www.plos.org Re-engineering • Dissemination – Open access • Organization of content – Impact and audience • Authoring and certification – Eliminating all unnecessary delays
  5. 5. www.plos.org Re-engineering dissemination Open Access
  6. 6. www.plos.org 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
  7. 7. www.plos.org • 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 PLoS publishing strategy
  8. 8. www.plos.org PLoS Biology October, 2003 PLoS Medicine October, 2004 PLoS Community Journals June-September, 2005 October, 2007 PLoS ONE December, 2006
  9. 9. www.plos.org 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Publications Submissions Growth in submissions and publications
  10. 10. www.plos.org Financial growth % Operating expense covered by operating revenue 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
  11. 11. www.oaspa.org
  12. 12. What is open access? • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted use
  13. 13. What is open access? • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted use
  14. 14. What is open access? • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted use
  15. 15. What is open access? • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted use
  16. 16. www.plos.org A network of literature Document
  17. 17. www.plos.org A network of literature and data Document Database
  18. 18. www.plos.org www.flickr.com/photos/chris_short/79656776/ Open access • Free, immediate access • Unrestricted reuse
  19. 19. www.plos.org Re-engineering organization of content
  20. 20. The life cycle of a research article Journal name is keyPublication Research Submission Peer review Rejects 2-3 Experts Is it rigorous? Good enough? Right audience? Takes months/years
  21. 21. www.plos.org What do we need to do before research is published? What is best left until after publication?
  22. 22. www.plos.org
  23. 23. www.plos.org • 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 PLoS ONE’s Key Innovation – The editorial process
  24. 24. www.plos.org Y/E 0.83%464290602010** 0.52%440468192009 0.34%272344012008 0.16%123124972007 0.02%1384732006* % of annual PubMed PublicationsSubmissionsYear *Started publishing Dec 20th, 2006 **Up to Oct 5th Community acceptance – largest peer-reviewed journal – >50,000 authors – >1300 Academic Editors PLoS ONE – statistics
  25. 25. www.plos.org
  26. 26. www.plos.org What do we need to do before research is published? What is best left until after publication?
  27. 27. www.plos.org Who cares about measuring research impact? Institutions Researchers (authors and readers) Publishers Funders The public Librarians
  28. 28. www.plos.org How do we measure ‘impact’? The impact factor of the journal in which an article is 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/
  29. 29. www.plos.org How could we measure ‘impact’? • 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 At the ARTICLE LEVEL, we could track:
  30. 30. (http://tiny.cc/ALM1)
  31. 31. CrossRef Landing Page
  32. 32. www.plos.org
  33. 33. www.plos.org
  34. 34. www.plos.org
  35. 35. CiteULike Landing Page
  36. 36. www.plos.org
  37. 37. www.plos.org
  38. 38. Downloading the data http://www.plosone.org/static/plos-alm.zip
  39. 39. Evaluating the (usage) data
  40. 40. Evaluating the (usage) data
  41. 41. www.plos.org 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
  42. 42. The goals of PLoS Hubs • Aggregate open access content – Wherever it is published • Add value to content by connecting with data • Build communities around content Demonstrate the power of open access
  43. 43. ITIS Flickr Wikipedia NCBI GBIF
  44. 44. Steering Committee Michael J. Donoghue Yale University Jonathan A. Eisen University of California, Davis Georgina Mace Imperial College, London David Mindell California Academy of Sciences Roderic D. M. Page University of Glasgow Richard Pyle Bernice P. Bishop Museum Curators Edward Vanden Berghe Ocean Biogeographic Information System Thomas Brooks NatureServe Brian Fisher California Academy of Sciences Robert Guralnick University of Colorado, Boulder Peter Kareiva The Nature Conservancy Patricia Miloslavich University Simon Bolivar Hugh Possingham Univerity of Queensland Andy Purvis Imperial College London Peter Roopnarine California Academy of Sciences Quentin Wheeler Arizona State University The Hub Community
  45. 45. Next steps for PLoS Hubs • Enhance and automate content enrichment • Develop Hubs community – allow users to ‘follow’ a curator • Extend literature sources beyond PMC – ideally to non-OA content • Extend Hubs concept to other disciplines • Make Hubs easy to replicate
  46. 46. www.plos.org Re-engineering authoring and certification
  47. 47. www.plos.org New models of scholarly communication 1 year 100 days 1 day Conventional PLoS ONE PLoS Currents Publication
  48. 48. www.plos.org • An innovative forum for the rapid exchange of results and ideas • Registration – Articles are date-stamped and citable • Certification – Reviewed by expert researchers • Dissemination – All content is open access • Preservation – Archived at PubMed Central PLoS Currents: Key features
  49. 49. www.plos.org Seeking Lessons in Swine Flu Fight “Another problem is communication. Officials and experts say they have learned a lot about human swine influenza. But relatively little of that information...has been reported and published. Some experts said researchers were waiting to publish in journals, which can take months or longer.” New York Times, August 10th, 2009 Lawrence K. Altman, M.D. PLoS Currents – Inspiration
  50. 50. www.plos.org Google Knol: Author(s) assemble content and control access and editing. Authors submit content to PLoS Currents. PLoS Currents: Expert reviewers control posting of content, commenting and version control. PubMed Central: Immediate transfer from PLoS Currents site; stable identifier and permanent archiving. PLoS Currents – Workflow
  51. 51. www.plos.org
  52. 52. www.plos.org
  53. 53. www.plos.org
  54. 54. www.plos.org • Quick prescreen by Editors • Submission sent to Board of Reviewers. • Is it legitimate science and does it contain any obvious methodological, ethical or legal violations? • Editors review comments before decision sent to author.
  55. 55. www.plos.org From submission to publication in a few days
  56. 56. www.plos.org
  57. 57. www.plos.org
  58. 58. www.plos.org
  59. 59. www.plos.org
  60. 60. www.plos.org
  61. 61. www.plos.org
  62. 62. www.plos.org PLoS Currents • Very fast • Cost-effective • Reviewed by experts • Citable • Version control • Archived at PubMed Central • Included in PubMed • Flexible and easy to replicate
  63. 63. www.plos.org PLoS Currents – New sections • Launched on Sept 2nd – PLoS Currents: Huntington Disease (produced with support from CHDI Foundation) – PLoS Currents: Evidence on Genomic Tests (in collaboration with the CDC) • To be launched in a few weeks – PLoS Currents: Tree of Life (phylogenetic analyses)
  64. 64. The life cycle of a research article Journal name is keyPublication Research Submission Peer review Rejects 2-3 Experts Is it rigorous? Good enough? Right audience? Takes months/years
  65. 65. New models of scholarly communication Focus on the articlePublication Research Submission Peer review Rejects 2-3 Experts Is it rigorous? Good enough? Right audience? Takes weeks/months Enhanced article Article-level metrics Integrated with data Organization in Hubs PLoS Currents
  66. 66. www.plos.org The landscape is changing www.flickr.com/photos/keepitsurreal/1884615328/

×