Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Davis Open Access Talk
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

Davis Open Access Talk

759
views

Published on

The slides for the talk on open access given by Dr. Gary Ward on Thursday, January 26, 2012.

The slides for the talk on open access given by Dr. Gary Ward on Thursday, January 26, 2012.


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
759
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
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. From PLoS to PMC and back againPLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed CentralPLoS 2011
  • 2. The access problem T Research R Teaching T PhysiciansP Patients, advocacy groups Public Health officials
  • 3. The 2001 Public Library of Science Petition “…We pledge that, beginning in September 2001, we will publish in, edit or review for, and personally subscribe to only those scholarly and scientific journals that have agreed to grant unrestricted free distribu- tion rights to any and all original research reports that they havepublished, through PubMed Central and similar online publicresources, within 6 months of their initial publication date”
  • 4. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o mIn 2009, Elsevier reported aprofit of $1.1 billion on totalrevenues of $3.2 billion
  • 5. t h u mb s . d r e ams t i me . c o mIn 2009, Elsevier reported aprofit of $1.1 billion on totalrevenues of $3.2 billion
  • 6. ASCB: Molecular Biology of the Cell Research articles Published 2010: 362 Institutional subscription price: tiered pricing, range $450-750 Copyright: Author holds copyright under a Creative Commons Noncommercial Share Alike license Access policy (since 2001): MBC in Press preprints are freely available to anyone. Access to MBC Online is by subscription for two months, then freely available to anyone. All final articles are deposited in PubMed Central. Bottom line, FY10: $350,683
  • 7. How can a 2-month embargo period be sufficient to protect subscription revenue? >> Online hits to articles in the January issue are highest in the first 2-3 months after publication, then drop precipitously
  • 8. ASCB: Advocacy for broader public accessThe ASCB supports the proposed NIH policy on Public Access to NIHResearch Information (NOT-OD-04-064) for the following reasons:1. Barriers to scientific communication slow scientific progress.2. A comprehensive, searchable database will profoundly enhance scientists’ research productivity.3. It is fair that taxpayers have access to the research results that they funded.4. Subscription income will not be adversely affected by the deposit of research articles in PubMed Central for open access six months following publication.5. The proposed policy does not preclude publishers from restricting access to other value-added content that is not the result of NIH-funded research.
  • 9. The NIH Public Access PolicyIn accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161(Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary PublicAccess Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states: The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.Compliance with this Policy remains a statutory requirement and a termand condition of the grant award and cooperative agreement. → Made permanent in 2009
  • 10. Why Public Access?• ACCESS. Provide electronic access to NIH- funded research publications for patients, families, health professionals, scientists, teachers, and students.• ARCHIVE. Keep a central archive of NIH- funded research publications—for now and in the future, preserving vital medical research results and information for years to come.• ADVANCE SCIENCE. Create an information resource that will make it easier for scientists to mine medical research publications, and for NIH to manage better its entire research investment.
  • 11. PLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed CentralPLoS 2011
  • 12. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available
  • 13. • More than 2.3 million full text articles available• 500,000+ unique users retrieve 1 million articles every day• 79% of the articles in PMC have been accessed 11 times or more
  • 14. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …• Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act www.costumeexpress.com
  • 15. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …• Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act “This is the moment academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists … Elseviers business does not make money by publishing our work, but by doing the exact opposite: restricting access to it.”
  • 16. The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …• Efforts to roll back access • HR3699: The Research Works Act• Efforts to improve access • HR5116: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 www.costumeexpress.com • HR5037: Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)• Unsung heroes: SPARC
  • 17. PLoS 2001 The petition The ASCB NIH Public Access policy PubMed Central PLoS 2011 Public AccessOpen Access
  • 18. Publ i c Ac c es s vs Open Ac c es s > F r e e l y avai l ab l e > F r e e l y an d i mme d i at e l y o n l i n e at s o me avai l ab l e o n l i n e poi nt > Co p yr i g h t al l o ws p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n unre s t ri ct e d re us e by Te x t mi n i n gwww.bloggersodear.comwww.frenchhousebnb.com S e man t i c e n r i c h me n t r e ad e r s , as l o n g as at t r i b u t i o n i s g i ve n D at a r e an al ys i s Cl as s r o o m u s e Tr an s l at i o n , e t c …
  • 19. “ Our aim is to catalyze a revolution in scientific publishingby providing a compelling demonstration of the value andfeasibility of open-access publication. If we succeed… thisonline public library of science will form a valuable resourcefor science education, lead to more informed healthcaredecisions by doctors and patients, level the playing field forscientists in smaller or less wealthy institutions, and ensurethat no one will be unable to read an important paper justbecause his or her institution does not subscribe to aparticular journal.” (2003)
  • 20. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)• 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• Make the literature more useful – to scientists and the public
  • 21. PLoS Journals2003 2004 • Professional editors http://phylogenomics.blogspot.com • Highly selective • Added-value content/services PLoS Biology Academic EIC
  • 22. PLoS Journals2003 2004 2005 2005 2005 2006 2007
  • 23. PLoS’ publishing operations are profitable
  • 24. Why publish in PLoS ONE?• Open access, reasonable author charges• Inclusive scope – a publication for the whole of science• A new kind of peer review – Objective criteria: Is it technically sound? Does it meet reporting standards? Are the conclusions justified based on the data? – Not: interest, importance, significance• Streamlined production – acceptance to publication in as little as 3 wk• Post-publication evaluation tools
  • 25. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery: the proliferation of PLOS ONE clones
  • 26. PLOS ONE: Challenges and lessons learned• Dealing with rapid growth, scaling • Processes, people • Consistent editorial decision-making• As the corpus grows: • Navigation of content • Outlier problems - quality of papers, processing time
  • 27. PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)√ • 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 • Make the literature more useful – to scientists and the public
  • 28. PLoS (2011) : “Leading a Transformation in Research Communication” • Provide ways to overcome unnecessary barriers to immediate availability, access, and use of research • Pursue a publishing strategy that optimizes the openness, quality, and integrity of the publication process • Develop innovative approaches to the assessment, organization, and reuse of ideas and data
  • 29. Experiments in progress • I mp r o ve d r e - u s e o f c o n t e n t > PLo S Hub s• me as u r i n g i mp ac t at t h e ar t i c l e ( n o t j o u r n al ) l e v > ar t i c l e - l e v e l me t r i c s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt • e n c o u r ag e mo r e r ap i d an d o p e n d at a s h ar i n g > PLo S Cur r e nt s • p o s t - p u b l i c at i o n d i s c u s s i o n & c o mme n t > c o mme nt i ng t o o l s : al l jo ur nal c o nt e nt • b r i d g e t h e g ap b e t we e n r e s e ar c h r e p o r t i n g an d t h e b r o ad e r p u b l i c > PLo S Bl o g s
  • 30. How do we measure the impact / importance of a paper?• By t h e t i t l e / i mp ac t f ac t o r o f t h e j o u r n a i n wh i c h i t was p u b l i s h e d !!! NO !!! !!! NO !!!
  • 31. How do we measure the impact / importance of a paper? How can we help readers decide what to read?• Ar t i c l e l e ve l me t r i c s > c i t at i o n s t o t h at s p e c i f i c ar t i c l e - s c h o l ar l y ( PMC, S c o p u s , Cr o s s r e fW S) o - o t h e r ( W k i p e d i a, F 1 000) i > p ag e vi e ws , p d f d o wn l o ad s > r e ad e r c o mme n t s , n o t e s , r at i n g s > b l o g an d me d i a c o ve r ag e > s o c i al me d i a d at a mi n i n g - Twe e t s , F ac e b o o k “ l i k e s ” , Me n d e l e t c … e t c ….
  • 32. http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0000005PLoS Article level metrics, v1: an example
  • 33. ⇒ ALMs, combined with journals whose only criterion for acceptance is being scientifically sound (e.g. PLoS ONE)
  • 34. http://www.altmetric.com/demos/plos.html
  • 35. Article level metrics Content re-usePost-publication discussion/comment Article of the future?