FORCE 11: Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship

631 views

Published on

Presentation to the Journals Committee of the American Association of Publishers

Published in: Technology, Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
631
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
14
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • 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.
  • First 6 results in Pub Med for SMA: Can’t access, 3 different publishers. Only one is freely available.
  • Cow metaphor:We mash and compress our research works into something that is human consumable and then spend a lot of time, effort and money to reproduce what was originally done. Only we don’t end up with the cow back again; we end up with bits and pieces
  • Phil Bourne Playing the role of “Oh, we have produced a 200 page report about the possible changes that we could do to the system.-  And what are you going to change?- Very little!”Don’t want FORCE11 to be a place where we just talk, complain and report. How do we “Make it Happen?”
  • FORCE 11: Future of Research Communications and e-Scholarship

    1. 1. FORCE11Future of Research Communicationsand E-Scholarshiphttp://force11.orgMaryann E. Martone, Ph. D.University of California, San Diego
    2. 2. What is FORCE11?• Future of ResearchCommunications and E-Scholarship– A grass roots effort toaccelerate the pace andnature of scholarlycommunications and e-scholarship throughtechnology, education andcommunity• Why 11? We were born in2011 in Dagstuhl, Germany• Principles laid out in theFORCE11 Manifesto• FORCE11 launched in July2012Supported by a grant from the Sloan Foundation
    3. 3. The FORCE11 ManifestoProblems RecommendationsFormats and Technologies2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit andundermine effective knowledge transfer3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarlypublication2.2 Improved knowledge disseminationmechanisms produce information overload3.2 Develop tools and technologies that bettersupport the scholarly lifecycle2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard toreuse3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into thepublication as first-class research objectsBusiness Models and Attribution of Credit2.4 There is a tension between commercialpublishing and the provision of unfettered access toscholarly information3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models ofopen access2.5 Traditional business models of publishing arebeing threatened3.5 Derive new business models for sciencepublishers and libraries2.6 Current academic assessment models don’tadequately measure the merit of scholars and theirwork over the full breadth of their research outputs3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluatingquality and impact that extend beyond traditionalprint outputs to embrace the new technologieshttp://www.force11.org/white_paper
    4. 4. Who is FORCE11?PublishersLibrary andInformationscientistsPolicymakersToolbuildersFundersAnyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st centuryScienceSocialScienceHumanitiesScholarsExecutive Committee•Maryann Martone, UCSD•Phil Bourne, UCSD•Anita de Waard, Elsevier•Ed Hovy, Carnegie-Mellon•Tim Clark, Harvard•Cameron Neylon-PLoS•Paul Groth-VU, Amsterdam•Ivan Herman-W3C•Dan O’Donnell-U Lethbridge
    5. 5. FORCE11 Vision• Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far widerimpact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear• We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication moregenerally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge• To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarlypublication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts• To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put inplace reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate andcontribute• To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have tosupport the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offeringsthat new technologies enableBeyond the PDF Visual Notes by De Jongens van de Tekeningen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
    6. 6. Old Model: Single type of content;single mode of distributionScholarLibraryScholarPublisher
    7. 7. ScholarConsumerLibrariesData RepositoriesCode RepositoriesCommunitydatabases/platformsOACuratorsSocialNetworksSocialNetworksSocialNetworksPeer ReviewersNarrativeWorkflowsDataBlogs/WikisMultimediaNanopublicationsCode
    8. 8. The scientific corpus is fragmented• 22 million articles total,each covering afragment of thebiomedical space• Each publisher owns afragment of a particularfield– Spinal Muscular Atrophy• Fatal genetic disorder ofchildren• 5000 papers
    9. 9. Whole-sale text-mining is required forsynthesis and discoverySearch Pub Med: SpinalMuscular Atrophy
    10. 10. Current methods are inefficient andresult in a non-computable productPuneetKishor,
    11. 11. Is the current method servingscience?47/50 major preclinicalpublished cancer studiescould not be replicated “The scientific communityassumes that the claims in apreclinical study can be taken atface value-that although theremight be some errors in detail,the main message of the papercan be relied on and the datawill, for the most part, standthe test of time. Unfortunately,this is not always the case.”Begley and Ellis, 29 MARCH 2012 | VOL 483 |NATURE | 531 “There are no guidelines thatrequire all data sets to bereported in a paper; often,original data are removed duringthe peer review and publicationprocess. “ Getting data out sooner in aform where they can beexposed to many eyes andmany analyses may allow us toexpose errors and developbetter metrics to evaluate thevalidity of data
    12. 12. Scholarly communication shouldmove away from its paper centricmodel and traditions, and join theinformation age!Ivan Herman
    13. 13. A new platform for scholarlycommunicationsComponents• Authoring tools– Optimized for mark up and linked content• Containers– Expand the objects that are considered “publications”– Optimize the container for the content• Processes– Scholarship is code• Mark up– Data, claims, content suitable for the web– Suitable identifier systems• Reward systems– Incentives to change– Reward for new objectsScholarship must move from a “single currency system”;platforms must recognize diversity of output and representation
    14. 14. www.researchobject.org
    15. 15. Beyond the PDF• Conference/unconference where allstakeholders cometogether as equalsto discuss issues• Incubator forchange• What would you doto change scholarlycommunication?San Diego, Jan 2011 ........... Amsterdam, March 2013
    16. 16. Sessions
    17. 17. We have produced a 200 page report.What are you going to change?“Very Little.”May 15, 2013 17Slide courtesy of Todd Carpenter
    18. 18. Outcomes• FORCE11 Manifesto 2.0– Recommendations forpropelling scholarlycommunications into thefuture• 1K Challenge:– What would you do for 1Kto change scholarlycommunication?• Landscape of scholarlycommunication– Who is doing what?– Are their gaps?Visual notes of BtPDF2:De Jongens van de Tekeningen
    19. 19. Manifesto 1.0 Manifesto 2.0Problems RecommendationsFormats and Technologies2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit andundermine effective knowledge transfer3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarlypublication2.2 Improved knowledge disseminationmechanisms produce information overload3.2 Develop tools and technologies that bettersupport the scholarly lifecycle2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard toreuse3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into thepublication as first-class research objectsBusiness Models and Attribution of Credit2.4 There is a tension between commercialpublishing and the provision of unfettered access toscholarly information3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models ofopen access2.5 Traditional business models of publishing arebeing threatened3.5 Derive new business models for sciencepublishers and libraries2.6 Current academic assessment models don’tadequately measure the merit of scholars and theirwork over the full breadth of their research outputs3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluatingquality and impact that extend beyond traditionalprint outputs to embrace the new technologiesCan we check some things off? What do we need to add?
    20. 20. Born digital: Narrative objects madefor the web• The Manifesto shouldbe an exemplar of anew form of scholarlycommunication– Interactive– Collaborative– Born for the web• The DigitalHumanities has beenthinking and creatingin this mediumTara McPherson, University of Southern California
    21. 21. ORCID – Author disambiguationFounded by CrossRef,Thomson-Reuters,Nature in 2009Now 328 participantorganizations, 50 ofwhich have providedsponsorship fundingPrototype technologyLaunched in fall 2011May 15, 2013 21FORCE 11: A mechanism for cross-disciplinary educationand outreach“What is an orcid id?”-computer scientist
    22. 22. Bringing stakeholders together: Datacitation principleshttp://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifestoMercèCrosas, Todd Carpenter, David Shotton and Christine Borgman
    23. 23. Other 1K Challenge WinnersTobias Kuhn, StianHaklev, Melissa HaendelFORCE11: Engaging the community
    24. 24. Ending the tyranny of formattinghttp://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2012/12/13/a-call-for-scholarly-markdown/Separating the code from the interface
    25. 25. Reproducibility and representation ofresearch resources: Current problems• Lack of access to materials and methods sections of papers• Lack of sufficient information within a paper– Author doesn’t supply sufficient information to uniquely identify theresource• No stock numbers, catalog numbers, model numbers, or other uniquely identifyinginformation• Resource identification not optimized for automatedsystems– “We used the protocol of Martone et al., 1999”– Official mouse strain names not meant for computers• SMNΔ7tg/tg:Smn1−/−– Non-unique, common names for resources, e.g., RNeuroscience Information Framework: http://neuinfo.orgMonarch Initiative: http://monarchinitiative.org
    26. 26. Workshop: Identification and trackingof biomedical resources• Focus on developing consistent policies foridentifying key reagents and resources (e.g.,software tools) used in scientific studies• Neuroscience journal editors and publishers• Consistent reporting format:– Machine processable– Outside the pay wallJune 26, 2013: Bethesda, MD
    27. 27. Scholarly communication landscape:Is there a big picture?Are we really suffering from a lack oftools?-or is it usable tools?-or is it tools that are used?-or is it awareness that thereare tools?-or are these even the righttools?ORCIDData journalsResearch Data AlliancePeerJ, eLifeWorkflows 4EverData VerseImpact Story, RubriqSadieScalar
    28. 28. What big issues are we notaddressing?• New roles and vanishing roles• Are there broad agreementsthat need to be forged?• Are the issues the same for allstakeholders?Librarians are publishersScholars are curatorsPublishers are archivistsScholars are customersScholars are publishersEveryone is a standards developer!Is there still a role for everyone? Are we training an adequate workforce?Scholars need to be data scientistsOpen citations? Text mining across the corpus?Where is lack of coordination holding us back?Humanities and sciencesDeveloped and developing worldTechnologists and scholarsInstitutions and individualsScholars and taxpayersCan and should everyone be brought to the table forall discussions?FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions
    29. 29. http://www.scilogs.com/eresearch/pages-of-history/ David De Roure29
    30. 30. The scholarly community is changing• 7000 scientists signedthe declaration to endthe reliance on impactfactorhttp://am.ascb.org/dora/Jongens van de Tekeningen
    31. 31. Questions for you?• Is your community represented in FORCE11?• Are your needs the same as the other stakeholders in the areasof:– Containers– Processes– Mark up– Authoring– Reward• Are there new areas not addressed in the manifesto?• What do you need from FORCE11?– Users?– Tools?– Collaborators?– Advertising?– A bully pulpit?/platform for cooperation?– Protocols and best practices?• What can you do for FORCE11?

    ×