Open Access and PLOS: The Future of Scholarly Publishing - Dr. Virginia Barbour

3,706 views

Published on

In this presentation, Dr. Barbour discussed the emergence of open access from traditional publishing models, the current open access landscape where PLoS journals have foreshadowed the development of megajournals as well as predicting future developments.
In defining the Open Access Publishing model, Dr. Barbour emphasized the crucial role creative commons licences play in ensuring that research is not only available free to view online, but is able to be re-used.

0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,706
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1,727
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • There are so many different ways of accessing information
  • What made this all possible?
  • What is open access
  • What does it mean for my research?
  • Address at the beginning of the submission process, just like submission of the protocol, ethical approval, etc“optimal human and machine-readable formats” – an aspirational goal
  • Email directly from author
  • Open Access and PLOS: The Future of Scholarly Publishing - Dr. Virginia Barbour

    1. 1. Open Access and PLOS: The Future of Scholarly Publishing Ginny Barbour Medicine Editorial Director, PLOS vbarbour@plos.org @ginnybarbour 0000-0002-2358-2440 1
    2. 2. Scholarly publication is old business 2 Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society: Started in 1665; first journal devoted exclusively to science publishing
    3. 3. Scholarly publishing is big business • More than 2000 publishers – Commercial: Elsevier, Springer, Wiley Blackwell, etc – University Presses: OUP, CUP, ACS, AIP – Scholarly societies – Independent not for profit, eg PLOS – Open access, Subscription, Hybrid • More than 25,000 journals • More than 1.5 million articles published per year • Worth many billions of dollars 3
    4. 4. This is the world that we live in….
    5. 5. The internet changed everything 5 There are three things that we need to understand about the web. First, it is more amazing than we think. Second, the conjunction of technologies that made the web successful was extremely unlikely. Third, we probably would not create it, or any technology like it, today. In fact, we would be more likely to cripple it, or declare it illegal. James Boyle, Web’s never-to-be-repeated revolution, Financial Times, November 2, 2005
    6. 6. Open Access: the revolutionary idea 6
    7. 7. 7 Kiwi Open Access Logo by the University of Auckland, Libraries and Learning Services is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    8. 8. Open > Free 8
    9. 9. • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted distribution and re-use • Author retains rights to attribution • Papers are immediately deposited in a public online archive such as PubMed Central • Bethesda Principles, April 2003 9 Gold Open Access
    10. 10. Green Open Access • Publication in a non-gold OA journal then>> • Deposition in a repository, either institutional, eg a university; subject specific, or more general 10
    11. 11. Copyright: © 2013 Machingaidze et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. 1 1
    12. 12. Various flavours of licenses 12
    13. 13. www.plos.org All PLOS journals are gold open access • Free, immediate access online • Unrestricted distribution and re-use • Author retains rights to attribution and copyright • Papers are deposited in a public online archive such as PubMed Central Bethesda Principles, April 2003
    14. 14. 1 4 No permission required for any reuse Translation Redistribution Photocopying Coursepacks Reproduction of figures Deposit in databases Downloading data Text mining
    15. 15. PLOS • Founded in October, 2000 • December, 2002, $9M grant from Moore Foundation • October 2003, 1st journal, PLOS Biology, launched • Now has seven journals • Now has diverse sources of revenue – Publication charges • $2900 for PLOS Medicine and Biology • $2250 Community journals • $1350 PLOS ONE – Publication Fee assistance programme – Institutional and individual memberships – Advertising • 2011 posted first surplus
    16. 16. 16
    17. 17. The PLOS journals are about more than Open Access 1 7
    18. 18. 19
    19. 19. PLOS ONE: a key Innovation - the editorial process 20 • 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? • Everything that deserves to be published, will be published • Therefore the journal is not artificially limited in size • Use online tools to sort and filter scholarly content after publication, not before
    20. 20. The megajournals…
    21. 21. OK, why do I need to care about OA? 22
    22. 22. Open Access Momentum —Top Open Access Publishers 23 23 #ofArticles
    23. 23. Open Access Momentum—Growing Percentage of STM Articles Published Open Access 24 24 Source: Web of Science and Scopus databases, Mikael Laakso and Bo-Christer Bjork
    24. 24. Your funders care: ARC/NHMRC policies • ―… requires that any publications arising from an [ARC/NHMRC] supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve (12) month period from the date of publication‖. • Say all metadata must be deposited in IR with a link to OA version as soon as possible after acceptance • Prefer the deposit of Accepted or Published version into an IR • Permit the deposit into a subject repository (linking to the IR) • Permit publication in an OA journal (linking to the IR) • Both the ARC and the NHMRC do allow some of their grant allocation to be directed to publication costs: • NHMRC relates to any publication after 1 July 2012, regardless of the grant that supported the research; • ARC policy only affects publications arising from Funding Grants and Rules 2013 25
    25. 25. Many institutions care: 11/39 Australian universities have Open Access mandates • ANU • Charles Sturt • Deakin • Edith Cowan • James Cook • Macquarie • Newcastle • QUT • University of South Australia • Victoria • University of Queensland 26
    26. 26. 27
    27. 27. Most importantly, it’s good for your research… 28 http://aoasg.org.au/
    28. 28. Make it easy, please… 29
    29. 29. 30 http://aoasg.org.au/ What process do I follow?
    30. 30. How can I tell if it’s Open? • Illustrates a continuum of ―more open‖ versus ―less open‖ • Enables anyone to compare and contrast publications and policies • Broadens the understanding of OA • Determines how open a publisher and/or publication is by using the grid 3 1
    31. 31. PLOS journals on the spectrum 3 2
    32. 32. 3 3 International Journal and Research Academy Invitation for Paper Submission Publish your Paper through International Journal & Research Academy (IJARA) IJARA�stands for International Journal & Research Academy. We are searching for scholars from all over the world and from all fields of studies in order to bring them into a common platform.�IJARA�is an international organization for promoting research and for providing a common platform for research scholars from all disciplines.IJARA�is formed by group of researchers, academicians and scholars based in many different countries (such as USA, UK, Canada, Australia, Sweden, Italy, France, Poland, China, Nigeria, South Africa, Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Thailand, Malaysia, Hong Kong) working with various esteemed educational institutions, government and research organizations across the world. We strive to promote �E-Publishing� by publishing our journals in Electronic form,�IJARA�invites scholars, researchers, professionals and academicians to publish their research papers in our journals.�IJARA�is keen to publish papers from researchers all over the world. Paper Submission Deadline:�May 20, 2013 Review Results (Acceptance/Rejection) Notification: Within 10 working days (maximum) of paper submission. Publication Date:�June 01, 2013 Send manuscripts to the assigned email address for each journal. Submit articles for 2nd Issue, Volume 01 of following Journals The author(s) can submit their manuscripts for the following journal categories: International Journal ofBusiness & ManagementResearch [ISSN 2306-9165] Research Journal ofFinance and Accounting [ISSN 1888-7373] International Journal for Research and Developmentin Engineering [ISSN 2113-5468] Research Journal on Distance Learning [ISSN 2113-7968] Special Issue "Advances in Clinical Trials" Dear Dr. Editors, Please pay attention to our upcoming Special Issue on "Advances in Clinical Trials" ( www.scirp.org/journal/ijcm), which will be published in the "International Journal of Clinical Medicine"(IJCM, ISSN: 2158-2882), a peer-reviewed open access journal. We cordially invite you to submit your manuscript to this special issue through our Online Submission System. About Our Journal ■ Full peer review: All manuscripts submitted to our journals undergo peer review. ■ Fast publication: Fast peer review process of papers within approximately one month of submission. ■ Low price: Publication Fee Assistance to Authors from Low Income Countries. To authors who cannot afford a full payment of the fee, we may offer partial or total fee waivers on the sole condition that the papers they submit be of high quality. Article ProcessingCharges for Low and Lower Middle Income Countries are calculated according to the SCIRP Global Participation Initiative. Journal Introduction ■ IJCM has 315 papers in 19 issues so far ■ The downloads of articles in IJCM exceed 171,000 ■ The visits of the journal exceed 340,000 ■ The journal has been indexed by 64 databases Other Special Issues on IJCM ■ Pediatric Surgery Submission Deadline: May 15th, 2013 ■ Shoulder Surgery Submission Deadline: May 22th, 2013 >>More Connect with Us ■ E-mail: ijcm@scirp.org
    33. 33. ―Open Access‖ does NOT tell you about • The scope of the journal • The quality of the journal • The language of the journal • The review process of the journal 3 4
    34. 34. 3 5 ―The dark side of open access‖
    35. 35. 3 6 ―science‘s version of the Nigerian banking scams‖
    36. 36. Is blacklisting a solution? We can‘t police the internet 3 7
    37. 37. 38 WAME How can I judge trustworthiness?
    38. 38. p://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/Principles_of_Transparency_and_Best_Practice_in_Scholarly_Publishing.p df
    39. 39. What’s next? 40
    40. 40. Technology is enabling major changes in publishing • Open Access to publications ✔ • Open Access to data • Bringing authorship out of the shadows • ORCID • Contributorship • Enabling correction of the literature • Post publication peer review • New ways of measuring impact
    41. 41. We need the data behind the science to be visible
    42. 42. New PLOS Data Policy • Ensuring access to the underlying data should be an intrinsic part of the scientific publishing process • To ensure that all steps, from authoring to publication, capture data and its associated metadata well and then present them in optimal human and machine-readable formats to all readers and users of PLOS-published research 43
    43. 43. Key elements 44 • Update PLOS-wide data sharing policy (at http://www.plosone.org/static/policies#sharing) • Establish clarity with respect to authors‘ obligations • New policy highlights author‘s responsibility to determine and describe a data sharing plan • New policy contains enhanced enforcement mechanism • Therefore ensures transparency of data sharing, i.e. compliance with policy is externally visible to readers (and to Academic Editors/referees in peer review) • Aim to ensure policy is workable across scientific fields, and takes account of special considerations for privacy (in relation to human-subject research, and other issues)
    44. 44. We need to track contributions properly
    45. 45. Helping Science evolve 1: Version of Record
    46. 46. 47
    47. 47. 48
    48. 48. 49
    49. 49. Helping science evolve 2: Post publication review and commenting 50
    50. 50. 51 PubMed Commons—Post- publication, Community Commenting
    51. 51. Evaluation, Structured, Community Experiment I have some concerns about the validity of this work This is an exceptional example of science done well I see one or more clear problems with the validity of this work I believe this work is reliable If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: If the user selects either of these two options, display the following: The authors have made an exceptional effort to validate their conclusions This work provides an abundance of data for the community This dataset has potential for further analysis in the community This study is exceptionally well-designed I have successfully reproduced this work in whole or in part Insufficient detail to support argument Inconsistent or erroneous logic Problematic methodology and/or study design There is no way the experiments could be reproduced or tested There were insufficient experimental controls The data do not sufficiently justify the conclusions Inappropriate statistical design or data analysis OPTIONAL: OPTIONAL: 52
    52. 52. We need to talk about impact 53
    53. 53. 5 4 54 0.3% 100% 22.2% Citations are only a small fraction of how a paper is reused Article-Level Metrics from November 8, 2012 for 63,771 PLOS Papers
    54. 54. Papers in PLOS from QBI 55
    55. 55. 56
    56. 56. 57
    57. 57. 58
    58. 58. 59
    59. 59. 60
    60. 60. 6 2 PLOS ALM Usage Patterns 62 "Scholarly User" "Broader Impact" PDF Downloads HTML Views PubMed Central PLOS Website Citations Facebook, Twitter
    61. 61. 63
    62. 62. Dear Dr Barbour: Based upon data in part from our PLOS article on lethal injection and testimony from our co-author David Lubarsky, lethal injection has been ruled (at least for now) unconstitutional in the state of Tennessee.
    63. 63. ―The Dirty War Index (DWI) method has been adapted for use in NATO military environments to monitor civilian, woman and child casualties. This version of the DWI is called a ‗Civilian Battle Damage Assessment Ratio‘ (CBDAR). Since October 2009, the CBDAR methodology has been used by NATO forces in Southern Afghanistan in order to reduce the possibility of injuring Afghan civilians. The methodology has identified a number of military activities that historically lead to civilian mortality that has led to NATO changing procedures.‖
    64. 64. In short… The internet has changed academic publishing for good Publishing is, more than ever, a service industry Open (not just free) Access is a means to an end – the next (interesting) bit is in your hands
    65. 65. Other things I’d happily talk about… 67
    66. 66. Thank you – from PLOS in Brisbane! 68

    ×