Current model: Scholars are producing multiple types of research objects; each goes to their own infrastructure with little coordination among them.Consumer no longer exclusively a scholar: General public wants access to what they pay for; automated agents are accessing first and mining the content.
Alpsp final martone
Future of Research Communications and E-Scholarship
Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D.
Professor of Neuroscience, University of California, San
What is FORCE11?
Future of Research Communications
A grass roots effort to accelerate the pace
and nature of scholarly communications and
e-scholarship through technology, education
Why 11? We were born in 2011 in
Principles laid out in the FORCE11
Who is FORCE11?
Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century
• Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far wider
impact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear
• We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication more
generally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge
• To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarly
publication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts
• To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put in
place reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate and
• To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have to
support the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offerings
that new technologies enable
Beyond the PDF Visual Notes by De Jongens van de Tekeningen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Old Model: Single type of content;
single mode of distribution
The future is now...
The scientific corpus is fragmented
• ~25 million articles
total, each covering a
fragment of the
• Each publisher owns a
fragment of a particular
• The current process is
inefficient and slow
Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Is the current method serving
47/50 major preclinical
published cancer studies
could not be replicated
“The scientific community
assumes that the claims in a
preclinical study can be taken at
face value-that although there
might be some errors in detail,
the main message of the paper
can be relied on and the data
will, for the most part, stand
the test of time. Unfortunately,
this is not always the case.”
Begley and Ellis, 29 MARCH 2012 | VOL 483 |
NATURE | 531
“There are no guidelines that
require all data sets to be
reported in a paper; often,
original data are removed during
the peer review and publication
Getting data out sooner in a
form where they can be
exposed to many eyes and
many analyses may allow us to
expose errors and develop
better metrics to evaluate the
validity of data
A new platform for scholarly
• Authoring tools
– Optimized for mark up and linked content
– Expand the objects that are considered “publications”
– Optimize the container for the content
– Scholarship is code
• Mark up
– Data, claims, content suitable for the web
– Suitable identifier systems
• Reward systems
– Incentives to change
– Reward for new objects
Scholarship must move from a “single currency system”;
platforms must recognize diversity of output and representation
• Community platform
– Tools and resources
– Event calendar
– Community projects
>430 members from diverse stakeholder groups
Beyond the PDF
ce where all
together as equals to
– Library scientists
• Incubator for change
• What would you do to
San Diego, Jan 2011 ........... Amsterdam, March 2013
• FORCE11 helps facilitate
• Issues are not identical
but we can learn from
– Enhanced publications
• Digital humanities +
– Dealing with data
• Science +
“What is an ORCID id?”-computer scientist
Resource for scholarly communications:
People, organizations, publications, tools
Upgraded Tool and Resource catalog
to be released very soon
Scholarly communication landscape: Is
there a big picture?
Research Data Alliance
Impact Story, Rubriq
Are we really suffering
from a lack of tools?
• or is it usable tools?
• or is it tools that are
• or is it awareness that
there are tools?
• or are these even the
A place to come together: Data
•FORCE11 provides a neutral
space for bringing groups
representing > 20
with data citation
•Conducted a review of
current data citation
recommendations from 4
•Will present results at data
citation working group
meeting at Research Data
Alliance meeting in
Washington DC next week
A place for action
• Strong sense
that we should
• FORCE11 an
Why is coordination/cooperation
• New roles and vanishing roles
• Are there broad agreements
that need to be forged?
• Are the issues the same for all
Librarians are publishers
Scholars are curators
Publishers are archivists
Scholars are customers
Scholars are publishers
Everyone is a standards developer
Open citations? Text mining across the
Data: Public-private partnership?
Humanities and sciences
Developed and developing world
Technologists and scholars
Institutions and individuals
Scholars and taxpayers
FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions
Is there still a role for everyone?
Are we training an adequate workforce?
Scholars need to be data scientists
Whereis lack of coordination holding us back?
Can and should everyone be brought to the table for
Questions for you?
• Is your community represented in FORCE11?
• Are your needs the same as the other stakeholders in the areas of:
– Mark up
• Are there new areas not addressed in the manifesto?
• What do you need from FORCE11?
– A bully pulpit?/platform for cooperation?
– Protocols and best practices?
• What can you do for FORCE11?
Join FORCE11 now!