Open Access In Medicine

Uploaded on


  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads


Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds



Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

    No notes for slide


  • 1. Open Access in Medicine - Overview Martin Fenner Klinik für Hämatologie, Hämostaseologie, Onkologie und Stammzelltransplantation
  • 2. Open Access The author(s) grant(s) to all users a free, irrevocable right of access to, and a license to copy, use and distribute the work publicly and to make and distribute derivative works, subject to proper attribution of authorship. A complete version of the work and all supplemental materials is deposited (and thus published) in at least one online repository. Berlin Declaration on Open Access 2003
  • 3. „Allianz der Deutschen WIssenschaftsorganisationen“ signed the Berlin Declaration 27 29 ektorenkonferenz (HRK) Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (MPG) 28 Leibniz-Gemeinschaft 30 H#"$7#2$S0-#'46*5$D@*$()#*$+,,#--$ .#5'$7"#$!12$52@T#*$U#2'$&61$7"#$H#&,%9 26 Wissenschaftsrat !"#$ %&'&())*+,(%&$ -).$ */&01(&%&).$ '6*5$ 7#2$ 7"D#2-#*$ O&%0#*8#7"*56*5#*$ H(&$ A4)A0&+&$ P'#&+,-)%$ 1(0.$ ()2 2 )&067"/$ .&0$ !%*$ S40$ 7""&'$ 7)$ .&)$ !"#$ 132$7"#$#"*4#.*#*$N@,%-,%6.#*:$!"#-$5".'$ 24 Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft ,(&0+&$ 340#56-)%#40%7)(#7+(4)$ 804.-2 %&"'()$:',/5/8/+'01!%:,2$%&"&(#+&+>$E(+$.&0$ "*$8#-@*7#2#2$U#"-#$&6,%$132$7"#$6*'#29 !"#$ !"#$%#&'(")"#%*+,-./$ %&'$ (")%$ *+,$ P")%'"/#$ Q) -,%"#7.",%#*$FQ,%#2V$ ,(&0+$ .(&$ !"#$%&"'()$*+,+&&,(-"./0 1!%*2$ ('$J760$KLLU$%&%0*).&+&)$!"#0%&"'()0;5$ -"#.$ /#(#'*'0$ 1#2$ 34#"#2$ 5+('&+()%$ 6+&7 )"#%*+,-./$ *+4$ Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) +21$ ;#/+'&)%'#'#4$ <=47 4152617%8$ N&4# '(+$(60&0$340#56-)%$&()$9::&)+"(56&#$;-+<$ 95/"&0<5=4"4>01!%;<2$67+$.(&$!%*$&0%I)2 ."'8'(/#94:3'#4$ 25 .7#$ ('$ 9::&)+"(56&)$ =)+&0&##&$ %&)-+,+$ ,&).$&()&$,&)+07"&$=)#+(+-+(4)$%&#567::&)<$ „Bei der Förderung von Open Access müs- !"#$%&'%($)%($*(#+,'+%(-%&./'%($)%($!"#$ ()%+2/(#4/#;2"((#$ "2$ 1"/"'&.#4$ <=4,$ ;#"'(A4#"(#($?9 1&0.&)$#4"">$?(&$#&+,+&$#(56$.&#67"/$#564)$ .&0&)$!-:%7/&)#8&A+0-'$.(&$390.&0-)%$ %&'"#( )#*%+#,'-( ./"#( 0"'( 122"'"'( 3,-4'-( Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft *+$ 3B41#42C$ !#4$ STTU$+21$1"#$V# sen wir natürlich stets die verschiedenen Publi- >?9#2$ 5))#((@$ ('84A#4$ :0*6$:*0$.&)$@8&)2!55&##2;&.7)A&)$&()> kationskulturen der wissenschaftlichen Fächer .&#$@8&)2!55&##2;&.7)A&)#$-).$.&##&)$ 5,( 6&77"'78942:%&89";( <&77"'$ 01'$ 2334$ ()%2#..#$ +21$ 1"4#A'#$ -+/&2/$*'&+ 1"#(#4$ 5))#((7W#"'."2"# !"#$%&'()'"*+ *'&+ ,-$$-."+ *+$ !"#$% ?-$$'"$()9> =)+&0)$:40.&0+$#(&$()$(60&)$B&%&")$,-0$ 807A+(#56&$!)1&).-)%$&()#56"(&T+>$H40+$ berücksichtigen, aber wir sind sicher, dass grund- ,'+%(#+5+-+$ )%($ 6&##%'#./78+#(7+$ )&%$ D23=4,&'"=2$ E$ F#1#4*#"'0$ :;#4&..0$ 3:4$ +,/#(#'*'$N"41 &'#()%*"$"+,-.&/0(/+0'-#&12'+34&+56$4"2+ $()9>#='&+ *'&+ ?(56&0-)%$%-+&0$1(##&)#567:+"(56&0$C072 (#+$7-56$.7#$?@+'0A((+,,0%B&5(>0C+"D$7)2 sätzlich alle Fächer profitieren können“, 9&%"%$ )%($ :;%'<!..%##<=%>%?,'?@$ A%($ 1#2$ G+'*#4$ *&1"2'"*'&+ 8&92'"+ :."+ ;'< $-"*+ 9=$+ D'&94$ 2&.7'&+ 4"*+ A=('#2.=($ +21$ =%2#$ H&44"7 D(#$ (60&$ 1(##&)#567:+"(56&)$Q,"9,+' RSST' /#+,148$.#&#-#' &#+'!-:%7/&$ .(&$ F&07+-)%$ 8#'@*'$ 7"#$ NO?9K2Q-"7#*'"*>$ K2@1#-9 ! A%' E(+70/&(+&0$ %&#(&.&"+<$ .&##&)$ $'==$()9>#/+?-$$'"$()9>#+4"*+?-&#$()9>#+ 2'L'&+ 6&##%'#./78+#(7+$ B%1B7./+%+$ )&%$ *'+< C0(),(8#$ .&0$ G::&)+2 -).$ P)+&0#+*+,-)%$ .&0$ !%:,$ -).$ .(&$ :."+ B ! ,-0$ F&756+-)%$ .&#$ G,9*-,9448$944'&#+'!)3'J.8$-?.".#"='%.-' -@2$!2:$W&252#'$U"*'#20&*'#.:$ 2,-#""#-3#' "#$%#"&' ())*#+,-./' 01#+' +2'#4(':'*'$ "2'#42&'"=2&.#$ +21$ "2'#47 1"#$ ",$ ?9#2$ 5 "(56A&(+$ .&0$ ;0-)."7%&):40#56-)%$34+ ='-$#'"/+ )9#+ *9$+ @)'A9+ B%'"+ C(('$$+ 9I#-:+4"*+$%'-() >&.C",'?%'$ &D$ :;%'$ !..%##$ E%")$ ,')$ 4-,--5' 6)%.-' 4."&' 7)+48$#+' &,+,9:' ,";#! 7-:>$ V&0+0&+-)%$ .&0$ @8&)2!55&##2C4"(+(A$ .&0$ &#"#"'M+)N#(-"#$%#+'&#+'!)3',9:;#:)+!
  • 4. Gold OA Publishing in an Open Access journal Green OA Self-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed Central
  • 5. PubMed comprises more than 19 million citations for biomedical articles from MEDLINE and life science journals. Citations may include links to full-text articles from PubMed Central or publisher web sites.
  • 6. Availability of fulltext articles Matsubayashi et al. in PubMed in 2005 Figure 1 Full text availability of sample articles (n54,667) Matsubayashi M et al. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 the 8 countries accounting for the journal’s publishers (72.1%). PMC (26.0%) was the ratios. Among second most common method of access, followed by largest number of articles in the sample, the rate at doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.002. which OA articles were published by authors residing journal platforms or portal sites (17.4%). In contrast, the percentage of OA articles available in Canada was the highest (37.6%), with the United
  • 7. Distribution of PubMed Open Access articles from Germany in 2005 Journal Website PubMed Central Institutional Repository Author’s Website 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% Matsubayashi M et al. J Med Libr Assoc. 2009 doi: 10.3163/1536-5050.97.1.002.
  • 8. NIH Public Access Policy Starting May 25, 2008, peer-reviewed journal manuscripts that arise from NIH funds have to be submitted to PubMed Central upon acceptance for publication. These papers have to be made accessible to the public on PubMed Central no later than 12 months after publication.
  • 9. Submissions to PubMed Central NIH Public Access Policy
  • 10. Researcher Science Library Institution Funding Organisation Journal General Public Policy Makers Journalists
  • 11. Researcher Reader Reviewer Author Editor
  • 12. Reader
  • 13. Gideon Burton:
  • 14. The 20 most popular journals in my reference manager (about 1700 papers) include 1 Open Access journal: PLoS Medicine 3 Journals without an institutional subscription: Cell Lancet Oncology Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology
  • 15. atego- orable atients 100 -nega- 90 1 and 80 or out- 70 urvival Mutant CEBPA ates of 60 ely. 50 Mutant NPM1 on the 40 without FLT3-ITD e was 30 recent 20 D mu- Other genotypes 10 P<0.001 tcome 0 s with 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 , FLT3- ciated enetic Other genotypes 266 153 90 68 39 22 15 9 7 4 0 red in Mutant NPM1 without 150 123 101 75 56 38 25 14 10 4 2 FLT3-ITD of pa- Mutant CEBPA 67 54 39 30 19 13 8 6 5 3 0 e were nosti- Figure 2. Kaplan–Meier Survival Estimates, According to Genotype. with- Schlenk R et al. NEJM 2008 doi:10.1056/NEJMra063728 Data are shown for relapse-free survival (Panel A) and overall survival (Panel B). “Other genotypes” is defined as the FLT3-ITD genotype and the FLT3- ICM AUTHOR: Schlenk (Dohner) RETAKE 1st
  • 16. Krege S et al. Eur Urol 2008 doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2007.12.024
  • 17. Use Creative Commons Attribution License:
  • 18. Share fulltext papers with other people in your group
  • 19. Duncan Hull: photos/dullhunk/3249956703/
  • 20. Author
  • 21. Jorge Cham:
  • 22. Impact Factor A = the number of times articles published in 2007 and 2008 were cited by indexed journals during 2009 B = the total number of "citable items" published in 2007 and 2008. ("Citable items" are usually articles, reviews, proceedings, or notes; not editorials or Letters- to-the-Editor.) 2009 impact factor = A/B Calculated (and sold) by
  • 23.
  • 24. biological. PLoS Computational Biology and PLoS s are expected to cross this threshold in ed self-sufficiency almost immediately affordable price, and cost-effective to Published Articles publishes research on bacteria, PLoS Genetics reflects Coverageand PLoS Pathogens Operating Expense the full breadth PLoS ONE is an innovative, interactive journal fungi, parasites, prions, and viruses that interdisciplinary nature of genetics and genomics that publishes peer-reviewed rigorous research (% of operatingby publishing original contributions in contributes to our understanding of the biology research expense covered by operating revenues) within science and medicine. from all disciplines of pathogens and pathogen-host interactions. all areas of biology. % 100 submitted 90 published “ Working in conjunction with other advocacy groups, PLoS has been 80 part of a small, but influential, team that has changed public policy. Today, the NIH requires everyone supported by an NIH grant to 70 make their results publicly available in PubMed Central within one year of publication.” 60 – Dr. Harold E. Varmus, PLoS Co-founder, Chairman of the Board 50 9 40 PLoS Progress Report 30 PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases is the first 20 OA journal devoted to publishing research on PLoS ONE all scientific, medical, and10 public health aspects of the forgotten diseases affecting the world’s forgotten people. 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 PLoS Progress Report June 2009:
  • 25. Hybrid Access
  • 26. as Molecular Systems Biology, are fully model, science needs to be open, and web open access. researchers from less-developed countries take So why not implement full open in particular should not be disadvantaged acce access for all of our journals? Practical by being asked to pay beyond their means edit considerations have an important role. According to Journal Citation editorial for journal subscriptions. For that reason, Nature Publishing Group is in partnership them thro Reports ( omson Reuters), in 2007 we with a number of initiatives that provide Science in the open published 133 research papers (including free access to journal content to scientists Refe review articles). Subscription-based from such countries6. 1. ww 2. htt Advancedtowards open-access schemes gain momentum, the choice these, in‘author pays’ and As moves Materials published 736 items, E orts like between addition to the 3. htt and the open-access journal Optics Express subscription-based models may come down to fundamental business considerations rather thanin freedom that we grant to our authors limits 4. ww published 1961 papers, with publication in access to original research. making their research available in public 5. ww fees starting from $925 per paper. From repositories a er a reasonable amount of 6. ww e scienti c discourse is, by its very such statistics it is obvious that, assuming time, illustrate that the choice between NATURE MATERIALS | VOL 8 | AUGUST 2009 | open access and a subscription-based nature, open and democratic. Anyone can simple economics of scale, a switch to participate, and, based on the principles of an author-pays model in our case would approach is more a matter of deductive logic and experimental discovery, incur signi cant publication fees per having a sustainable business anyone can contribute to the process. ere paper published. model, rather than that of Papers published per year is no place for censorship in science. As an essay in the New York Times makes clear, In addition, at every stage of manuscript handling we a fundamentally di erent point of view. Sharing our nmat_2497_AUG09.indd 611 good science, we “If we are not practicing provide an expensive, high- entire publication costs Readers per paper probably aren’t practicing good democracy. And vice versa”1. quality service. is not only involves the professional among only 133 authors, rather than thousands of e natural consequence of this subediting and production of subscribing individuals Expensive services (e.g. prescreening by professional editors, openness in the practice of science is that all aspects of science should be open and accepted papers, but also an exhaustive prescreening of and institutions, certainly does not accessible to everyone. In that spirit, several submitted manuscripts. seem feasible. subediting) © ISTOCKPHOTO / PATRYK GALKA universities, including Harvard2, MIT3 and At Nature Materials, we As for the open- University College London4, have recently prescreen well above 80% access resolutions by announced initiatives that aim to make the of submitted manuscripts universities such as scienti c output of their researchers freely without peer review. is Harvard and MIT, available in public repositories. means that, at a cost, we at present we do not ese schemes are part of a more rely much less on the ‘free’ wish to accept any doi:10.1038/nmat2497 general drive towards open access in publishing, whereby authors, not readers, peer-reviewing services of scientists than journals addenda to our author licence, because, as
  • 27. The process of submitting a manuscript to a biomedical journal is time-consuming, requires skills that most scientists are not trained in, and is not standardized. The submission of an accepted manuscript to an institutional repository (green OA) is additional work with many of the same characteristics.
  • 28. Publication charges (2009) Nature Communications (starts 2010) 5.000 $ PLoS Medicine 2.900 $ EMBO Journal 2.795 $ Blood 2.000 $ BMC Cancer 1.690 $ PLoS ONE 1.200 $ BMJ 0$ Cancer Research (subscription access) charges $75 for submission and $85 per page for accepted manuscripts
  • 29. H Open Access vs. subscription access articles during the first six months after publication 120 The negative b Increase in downloads and visitors (%) no c that open access r di itat in ffe io 80 5% (incident rate re ns 0.81 to 1.10; P=0. nc expected citation e 40 1.55; P=0.716), al significantly differ 0 A supplementa on the same set o -40 Abstract Full text PDF Unique visitors open access publi being cited by Fig 2 | Percentage differences (95% confidence intervals) in confidence interv Davisdownloads of open access articles (n=247) andarticle downloads, and table at PM et al. Open access publishing, subscription mentary access articles (n=1371) during the first six months after although this effe citations: randomised controlled trial. BMJ publication. Downloads from known internet robots are 2008. excluded doi:10.1136/bmj.a568 DISCUSSION
  • 30. Outlook
  • 31. First issue April 2010, accepts submissions since October 2009 Aims for papers similar to Nature, but without the same broad impact Hybrid publishing model, costs calculated for 100% Open Access Online only, no editorials, news, etc.
  • 32. Press Release Nr. 57 (October 13, 2009) Die Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) baut ihre Unterstützung des Open-Access-Publizierens konsequent aus. Universitäten können künftig bei der DFG Mittel beantragen, um Publikationen ihrer Wissenschaftlerinnen und Wissenschaftler in 24 originären Open-Access-Zeitschriften zu finanzieren. Deutsche Forsc
  • 33. Franzen JL et al. PLoS ONE 2009 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005723
  • 34. Special thanks to Peter Binfield, Phil Vaughan, Lesley Anson, Cameron Neylon, Victor Henning, Richard Grant, Heinz Pampel and Graham Steel