Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Hi
• Dinosaur hunter
• Freelance science writer
• Children’s book author and
consultant
• Tweets occasionally
• Representi...
My journey into the ‘Open World’
• I blame everything on Ross
Mounce (@rmounce)
• It took a lot of paywall hitting for
it ...
Things Open is about to researchers
•Freedom
•Equality
•Access
•Knowledge
•Education
Things Open is about to publishers
• ...
Take that website as an example..
[Some] Researchers
• Liberation
• Freedom
• Justice
• Necessary
• Disruptive
• Convenien...
Open is really ridiculously complicated
• Librarians: serials crisis
• Researchers: more visibility/citations
• Economists...
What is Open?
•A vision
•A statement
•A cultural movement
•A social restructuring
•A way of thinking
@protohedgehog
What is Open not?
•A business
•A restriction
•A fad
•Socially exclusive
•Shallow
@protohedgehog
Why should we care about Open?
• Reduce costs for libraries
• Funds can then be redistributed
• Reduce competition for fun...
Disclaimer: some people get pretty angry
when you talk about ‘open’ publishing..
If you suffer from high blood pressure,
i...
BARRIERS
How does any of this help?
@protohedgehog
Total (as of 2016-02-05): 80,629,821
You can get up-to-date data at: http://api.crossref.org/works?facet=t&rows=0
Credit: ...
Same data by license type
Just 1,435,841 (as of 2016-02-05) are legally reusable.
That's less than 1.8% of the published r...
Which is odd. Because you paid for it.
Credit: @blahah404
Because of these publishers Credit: @blahah404
@protohedgehog
So what we have is a system that is..
• Largely funded by the public
• Governed by private interests
• Restricted in terms...
When publishers fail to innovate
https://thewinnower.com/papers/45-open-letter-to-the-american-association-for-the-advance...
@protohedgehog
Financial transparency
Price transparency for libraries for journal
and database packages – non-disclosure
agreements shut...
• Subscription expenditure
of UK higher education
institutions with ten
publishers: £93,766,870
https://olh.openlibhums.or...
Financial transparency
https://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/1998/feed_i
tems/135763
https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/20...
Financial transparency
https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions
What on Earth is going on up here?
@protohedg...
It’s like some publishers aren’t even trying
https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and-
coaf-open-access-s...
Financial transparency for authors
• What is the APC being spent on?
• How much does each part of the
process really cost?...
Open peer review
How is something secretive, exclusive, and closed supposed to be
objective?
@protohedgehog
An adventure with “Publisher X”
• That awkward moment when a
publisher breaches your copyright
• No formal confidentiality...
The result?
• Publisher X committed an act of copyright
infringement against one of their unpaid
volunteer reviewers
• Pub...
But…
• It’s kinda understandable from
the Editor’s perspective
• They have confidentiality interests
to consider
• This ne...
Since the incident..
@protohedgehog
It’s just as ‘enforceable’ as any of the previous, so why not?
The lessons?
• Be very explicit beforehand
1. About journal policies
2. About the conditions of reviewing
3. What everyone...
@protohedgehog
It should not be this complicated!
Aspects of open peer review
1. Publish the review reports
2. Referees are named
3. Anyone is allowed to contribute
4. What...
Open up the entire process!
• How long does it take for:
• Reviewing (each round, don’t hide them)
• Copy editing and proo...
Let’s talk about the impact factor..
@protohedgehog
Credit: Hilda Bastian
http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224
http://biorxi...
What can we all do?
• We have to break the chain
• Stop advertising
• Stop using it to evaluate
• Communicate openly
• And...
Other things that don’t fit into the narrative
that well..
• What is the true value add of publishing?
• Well, let’s see.....
The current state of scholarly communication?
Slowly but surely
adapting to the Web of
1995
@protohedgehog
Key messages
• Open communication is a necessity in a digital scholarly publishing
world
• People expect different standar...
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk

454 views

Published on

Presentation given at the ISMTE European meeting in Brussels, November 2016. The theme is Open Communication in scholarly publishing. More details here: http://www.ismte.org/page/2016EuroConference

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk

  1. 1. Hi • Dinosaur hunter • Freelance science writer • Children’s book author and consultant • Tweets occasionally • Representing myself, as these comments are likely to be quite irresponsible @protohedgehog
  2. 2. My journey into the ‘Open World’ • I blame everything on Ross Mounce (@rmounce) • It took a lot of paywall hitting for it to finally hit me.. • The more I learned.. • OpenCon as a turning point • Frustration led to anger, anger led to hate, then I kinda calmed down.. @protohedgehog
  3. 3. Things Open is about to researchers •Freedom •Equality •Access •Knowledge •Education Things Open is about to publishers • Mandates •Policy •Article charges • Embargoes • Compliance We have a huge language problem We are often having VERY different conversations about exactly the same thing @protohedgehog
  4. 4. Take that website as an example.. [Some] Researchers • Liberation • Freedom • Justice • Necessary • Disruptive • Convenient [Some] Publishers • Theft • Stealing • Damaging • Piracy • Illegal • Hacking We end up talking past each other, instead of working together to find solutions @protohedgehog
  5. 5. Open is really ridiculously complicated • Librarians: serials crisis • Researchers: more visibility/citations • Economists: helps small businesses • Activists: morality, freedom, equality • Publishers: money money money (profit) • Funders: money money money (cost) • Editors: want quality content published • Policymakers: have to resolve all of this @protohedgehog
  6. 6. What is Open? •A vision •A statement •A cultural movement •A social restructuring •A way of thinking @protohedgehog
  7. 7. What is Open not? •A business •A restriction •A fad •Socially exclusive •Shallow @protohedgehog
  8. 8. Why should we care about Open? • Reduce costs for libraries • Funds can then be redistributed • Reduce competition for funding • Students and researchers can access what they need • Also everyone else on the planet too • Cease journal business models defining where we can publish • Provide freedom of publishing venue without constraint • Publishing should be easy to afford even for the non-financially privileged • Align research with what the Web was designed for • Efficient and free knowledge transfer @protohedgehog
  9. 9. Disclaimer: some people get pretty angry when you talk about ‘open’ publishing.. If you suffer from high blood pressure, it’s probably best to sit this part out. Credit: Sallaria (DeviantArt)@protohedgehog
  10. 10. BARRIERS
  11. 11. How does any of this help? @protohedgehog
  12. 12. Total (as of 2016-02-05): 80,629,821 You can get up-to-date data at: http://api.crossref.org/works?facet=t&rows=0 Credit: @blahah404Wow! Such data! We must be learning loads, right?! @protohedgehog
  13. 13. Same data by license type Just 1,435,841 (as of 2016-02-05) are legally reusable. That's less than 1.8% of the published research literature. LOL NOPE Credit: @blahah404@protohedgehog
  14. 14. Which is odd. Because you paid for it. Credit: @blahah404
  15. 15. Because of these publishers Credit: @blahah404 @protohedgehog
  16. 16. So what we have is a system that is.. • Largely funded by the public • Governed by private interests • Restricted in terms of what we can do with it • Access is a financial or status privilege • The actual communication is secondary to the business model http://whyopenresearch.org/@protohedgehog
  17. 17. When publishers fail to innovate https://thewinnower.com/papers/45-open-letter-to-the-american-association-for-the-advancement-of-science https://thewinnower.com/papers/73-aaas-misses-opportunity-to-advance-open-access @protohedgehog
  18. 18. @protohedgehog
  19. 19. Financial transparency Price transparency for libraries for journal and database packages – non-disclosure agreements shut down the market http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201213/c mselect/cmbis/uc1086-i/uc108601.htm BIS Select Committee enquiry into Open Access, 2013
  20. 20. • Subscription expenditure of UK higher education institutions with ten publishers: £93,766,870 https://olh.openlibhums.org/articl es/10.16995/olh.72/ Model of Financial Flows in Scholarly Publishing for the UK, 2014. “The current lack of publicly available information concerning financial flows around scholarly communication systems is an obstacle to evidence-based policy-making – leaving researchers, decision- makers and institutions in the dark about the implications of current models and the resources available for experimenting with new ones.”
  21. 21. Financial transparency https://tagteam.harvard.edu/hub_feeds/1998/feed_i tems/135763 https://alexholcombe.wordpress.com/2013/01/09/scholarly- publishers-and-their-high-profits/ @protohedgehog
  22. 22. Financial transparency https://www.jisc.ac.uk/reports/apcs-and-subscriptions What on Earth is going on up here? @protohedgehog
  23. 23. It’s like some publishers aren’t even trying https://blog.wellcome.ac.uk/2016/03/23/wellcome-trust-and- coaf-open-access-spend-2014-15/@protohedgehog
  24. 24. Financial transparency for authors • What is the APC being spent on? • How much does each part of the process really cost? http://www.ubiquitypress.com/site/publish/ https://elifesciences.org/elife-news/inside-elife-setting-fee- publication @protohedgehog
  25. 25. Open peer review How is something secretive, exclusive, and closed supposed to be objective? @protohedgehog
  26. 26. An adventure with “Publisher X” • That awkward moment when a publisher breaches your copyright • No formal confidentiality agreement • No informal agreement • Zero information provided • Intervention via Publons • No notification of takedown • Conducted without my permission • In breach of my rights as a reviewer • Restricting the free flow of information • What the hell were they thinking? @protohedgehog
  27. 27. The result? • Publisher X committed an act of copyright infringement against one of their unpaid volunteer reviewers • Publisher X attempted to over-rule my own personal copyright with zero legal authority • Completely unenforceable • Publisher X either acted against my permission • Or believe they had copyright, which they did not @protohedgehog It works both ways, you know.. http://www.thelogofactory.com/
  28. 28. But… • It’s kinda understandable from the Editor’s perspective • They have confidentiality interests to consider • This needs to be much more explicit a priori • All are responsible for making sure the process is more transparent @protohedgehog
  29. 29. Since the incident.. @protohedgehog It’s just as ‘enforceable’ as any of the previous, so why not?
  30. 30. The lessons? • Be very explicit beforehand 1. About journal policies 2. About the conditions of reviewing 3. What everyone’s rights are • Be open with your communications • Transparency alleviates all problems • Don’t bully researchers • Don’t try and enforce things illegally • Talk with Publons • Consider open options @protohedgehog
  31. 31. @protohedgehog It should not be this complicated!
  32. 32. Aspects of open peer review 1. Publish the review reports 2. Referees are named 3. Anyone is allowed to contribute 4. What is the decision process based on? 5. How many reviews are declined before a sufficient number of referees are obtained? 6. What was the time taken for each part of the process? @protohedgehog http://www.economist.com/news/science-and- technology/21604089-two-big-recent-scientific-results-are- looking-shakyand-it-open-peer-review
  33. 33. Open up the entire process! • How long does it take for: • Reviewing (each round, don’t hide them) • Copy editing and proofing • Editorial decisions • Use this to create a time line of the expected process • Many publishers already experimenting/doing this: • EMBO • PeerJ • ELife • Nature Communications • Frontiers And, I might be wrong about this, but no-one has died yet.. @protohedgehog
  34. 34. Let’s talk about the impact factor.. @protohedgehog Credit: Hilda Bastian
  35. 35. http://www.nature.com/news/beat-it-impact-factor-publishing-elite-turns-against-controversial-metric-1.20224 http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/07/05/062109 Because it’s a BS statistic Skew is imposed by a very small number of highly cited papers
  36. 36. What can we all do? • We have to break the chain • Stop advertising • Stop using it to evaluate • Communicate openly • And informedly • Publish better statistics • Citation distributions • Accept responsibility for its misuse • ALL of us are accountable http://www.ascb.org/dora/@protohedgehog http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full
  37. 37. Other things that don’t fit into the narrative that well.. • What is the true value add of publishing? • Well, let’s see.. • No format diversity and stupidly strict rules • Very little usage statistics (outsourced mostly) • References rarely hyperlinked (and not deeply) • Networking features rare and terrible • Overlay systems practically non-existent • Again often outsourced too • Supplemental files considered an afterthought • Size constraints @protohedgehog
  38. 38. The current state of scholarly communication? Slowly but surely adapting to the Web of 1995 @protohedgehog
  39. 39. Key messages • Open communication is a necessity in a digital scholarly publishing world • People expect different standards growing up in a Web-dominated era • Open communication affects all parts of the scholarly publishing process, not just Open Access • Ask ourselves constantly, are we doing the best we can? How is this helping research communication? • Open communication is just a gateway to transparency, accountability, and equality

×