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.

Using OA Content


Published on

Joint ICTP-IAEA-UNESCO Workshop on New Trends for Science Dissemination Sep 7 2011.

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Using OA Content

  1. 1. Using Open Access Content: Ten Simple Observations SciVee & Beyond the PDF Philip E. Bourne University of California San Diego [email_address]
  2. 2. My Two Lectures <ul><li>The promise - Open Access, Open Science with particular reference to PLoS </li></ul><ul><li>The fulfillment - What Open Access facilitates and examples of how it benefits science </li></ul>
  3. 3. The fulfillment - What Open Access facilitates and examples of how it benefits science <ul><li>What you might get from this lecture: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>How others are using open science including open access content </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ideas for how you might use the content </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Todays Exemplars
  5. 5. Let me Start with a Few Observations Observation 1. Scientific culture is causing us to try and write more and read more
  6. 6. You Cannot Possibly Read a Fraction of the Papers You Should write more and read more Renear & Palmer 2009 Science 325:828-832
  7. 7. Scanning More Reading Less Renear & Palmer 2009 Science 325:828-832 write more and read more
  8. 8. And So… <ul><li>There has been a paradigm shift which places more emphasis on writing and less on reading – witness blogs, use of literature aggregators (e.g. PubMed), H-factors, etc. </li></ul><ul><li>We need help in assimilating knowledge </li></ul>write more and read more
  9. 9. Observation 2 In 1993 there were very few electronic journals, by 2003 nearly all were on-line, by 2013 there will be little or no paper Most traditional publishers have only really achieved an electronic print like experience – the power of the medium is for the taking
  10. 10. Observation 3. The Sociology of Scientific Disciplines is Different
  11. 11. Observation 4: <ul><li>The biomedical sciences is progressive: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Alternative business models have gained ground – Open Access </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Databases are becoming more like journals and journals are becoming more like databases </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>New modes of knowledge and data access are gaining some ground e.g. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Textpresso – ontology-based mining and retrieval system </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>iHOP Information Hyperlinked over Proteins </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. Observation 5. I Believe Open Access IF Fully Accepted Could Profoundly Change Scholarly Discourse It remains a big IF Open Access: Taking Full Advantage of the Content PLoS Comp. Biol. 2008 4(3) e1000037
  13. 13. Its Happening in the Closed Access Space <ul><li>A very clever idea – The App model </li></ul><ul><li>Leverage content </li></ul><ul><li>Provide an open API </li></ul><ul><li>Get the community to do all the work </li></ul><ul><li>Drive folks to buy content </li></ul>Why Don’ t We Have Such Developments in OA?
  14. 14. Growth of PubMed Central Open access could profoundly change scholarly discourse
  15. 15. Open Access (Creative Commons License) <ul><li>All published materials available on-line free to all (author pays model) </li></ul><ul><li>Unrestricted access to all published material in various formats eg XML provided attribution is given to the original author(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright remains with the author </li></ul>Open access could profoundly change scholarly discourse
  16. 16. Open Access (Creative Commons License) <ul><li>All published materials available on-line free to all (reader pays model) </li></ul><ul><li>Unrestricted access to all published material in various formats eg XML provided attribution is given to the original author(s) </li></ul><ul><li>Copyright remains with the author </li></ul>Open Access: Taking Full Advantage of the Content PLoS Comp. Biol. 2008 4(3) e1000037 Open access could profoundly change scholarly discourse
  17. 17. Observation 6 A biological database is not really that different from a biological journal – this can be exploited PLoS Comp. Biol . 2005 1(3) e34
  18. 18. The Data Knowledge Cycle Biocuration Electronic Supplements Databases versus journals
  19. 19. Both Are Under Stress <ul><li>PubMed contains ~21M entries (May 2011) </li></ul><ul><li>~100,000 papers indexed per month </li></ul><ul><li>In Feb 2009: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>67,406,898 interactive searches were done </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>92,216,786 entries were viewed </li></ul></ul><ul><li>1330 databases reported in NAR 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>MetaBase reports 2,651 entries edited 12,587 times </li></ul>PLoS Comp. Biol . 2005 1(3) e34
  20. 20. Some More Comparisons <ul><li>Journals have a pretty standardized interface </li></ul><ul><li>Journals have a business model </li></ul><ul><li>The quality is declining as numbers increase (?) </li></ul><ul><li>Audience believes they are sustainable </li></ul><ul><li>Efforts to make the interfaces different! </li></ul><ul><li>Little attempt at a business model compared to the Web 2.0 world </li></ul><ul><li>Quality is increasing (?) </li></ul><ul><li>Not well sustained </li></ul>PLoS Comp. Biol. 2008. 4(7): e1000136 Databases versus journals
  21. 21. Some More Comparisons <ul><li>New publishing models eg open access, self publishing, open review </li></ul><ul><li>Web 2.0 influence eg social networks </li></ul><ul><li>Use of rich media </li></ul><ul><li>The review process is failing </li></ul><ul><li>New metrics </li></ul><ul><li>Read and write eg Wikis </li></ul><ul><li>New services eg restful, widgets </li></ul><ul><li>Use of Rich Media </li></ul><ul><li>Crowd review emerging </li></ul>Databases versus journals
  22. 22. Duh <ul><li>If we need to acquire more knowledge quickly </li></ul><ul><li>If more literature and data are becoming open </li></ul><ul><li>If both are under stress </li></ul><ul><li>Why don ’t we merge journals and databases for a new learning experience </li></ul>
  23. 23. The Test Bed Merge journals and databases
  24. 24. The World Wide Protein Data Bank <ul><li>The single worldwide repository for data on the structure of biological macromolecules </li></ul><ul><li>Vital for drug discovery and the life sciences </li></ul><ul><li>38 years old </li></ul><ul><li>Free to all </li></ul> Merge journals and databases
  25. 25. The World Wide Protein Data Bank <ul><li>Paper not published unless data are deposited – strong data to literature correspondence </li></ul><ul><li>Highly structured data conforming to an extensive ontology </li></ul><ul><li>DOI ’s assigned to every structure </li></ul> Merge journals and databases
  26. 26. The PLoS/PMC Corpus – Under the Hood <ul><li>Conforms well/partially to the NLM DTD – little markup of content </li></ul><ul><li>PMC – some PDFs ! </li></ul><ul><li>The lack of conformance will come back to haunt us! </li></ul>
  27. 27. Author Submission via the Web Depositor Submission via the Web Syntax Checking Syntax Checking Review by Scientists & Editors Review by Annotators Corrections by Author Corrections by Depositor Publish – Web Accessible Release – Web Accessible Similar Processes Lead to Similar Resources Merge journals and databases
  28. 28. So the processes are not that dissimilar it is the final product that is perceived so differently Even that might be changing slowly? PLoS Comp. Biol. 2008 4(12) e1000247 Merge journals and databases
  29. 29. Merged: The Database View Merge journals and databases
  30. 30. Merged: The Literature View Nucleic Acids Research 2008 36(S2) W385-389 Merge journals and databases
  31. 31. Merge journals and databases
  32. 32. ICTP Trieste, December 10, 2007 Merge journals and databases
  33. 33. The Near Future <ul><li>User reads a paper </li></ul><ul><li>Clicks on a figure. Figure can be manipulated, annotated, interrogated </li></ul><ul><li>Clicking the figure gives a composite database journal view </li></ul><ul><li>This takes you to yet more papers or databases </li></ul>1. A link brings up figures from the paper 0. Full text of PLoS papers stored in a database 2. Clicking the paper figure retrieves data from the PDB which is analyzed 3. A composite view of journal and database content results 4. The composite view has links to pertinent blocks of literature text and back to the PDB 1. 2. 3. 4. The Knowledge and Data Cycle Enhanced modes of learning
  34. 34. Observation 7: This is Literature Post-processing Better to Get the Authors Involved <ul><li>Authors are the absolute experts on the content </li></ul><ul><li>More effective distribution of labor </li></ul><ul><li>Add metadata before the article enters the publishing process </li></ul>Merge journals and databases – requires semantic enrichment
  35. 35. Word 2007 Add-in for authors <ul><li>Allows authors to add metadata as they write, before they submit the manuscript </li></ul><ul><li>Authors are assisted by automated term recognition </li></ul><ul><ul><li>OBO ontologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Database IDs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Metadata are embedded directly into the manuscript document via XML tags, OOXML format </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Open </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Machine-readable </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Open source, Microsoft Public License </li></ul> Merge journals and databases – requires semantic enrichment
  36. 36. Challenges <ul><li>Author use </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Familiarity with ontologies, terms </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Agreement between co-authors </li></ul></ul><ul><li>End-use of semantically enriched manuscript </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Combine with NLM XML standard </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Article Authoring Add-in </li></ul></ul></ul>Merge journals and databases – requires semantic enrichment
  37. 37. Challenges: Author Use IF one or more publishers fast tracked a paper that had semantic markup I would argue it would catch on in no time Merge journals and databases – requires semantic enrichment
  38. 38. Observation 8: There Are Some Simple Things We Can Do to Mine the Corpus
  39. 39. Where We Would Like to Be: Data Clustering via the Literature Shared Function Enhanced modes of learning Immunology Literature Cardiac Disease Literature
  40. 40. Observation 9: The Use of Rich Media is Underutilized
  41. 41. Yes YouTube Can Increase the Rate of Discovery
  42. 42. Pubcast – Video Integrated with the Full Text of the Paper
  43. 43. Android iPhone Windows Phone 7 Step 1 presenter starts PowerPoint Step 2 presenter starts recording on smart phone Step 3 presenter stops recording and initiates upload Slides Website Step 5 slides and podcast are automatically synchronized Sync File Podcast Step 6 listener plays back synchronized presentation Proposal - The TeachU Workflow Mac PC Step 4 slides are uploaded
  44. 44. Lessons <ul><li>It is a form of expression the current YouTubers embrace and may become as ubiquitous as papers and slide presentations in the next few years </li></ul><ul><li>We are reinventing television </li></ul><ul><li>Its only going to work if it is easy to publish and the reward is obvious </li></ul>
  45. 45. Observation 10: Scientific Reproducability Requires we Publish Workflows
  46. 46. Yes The Workflow is Real
  47. 47. Reproducibility <ul><li>My views of reproducibility: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>We all express the importance, but the only time it is tested is when something is truly novel or error is suspected </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reproducability covers a spectrum of meaning – by whom and with how much effort </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The longer the time lag the less likely something is reproducible </li></ul></ul>
  48. 48. Workflow Tools Might be the Answer Taverna Wings
  49. 49. Consider an Example: Our Own Experience in Capturing the Scientific Process to Make it Open and Reproducable <ul><li>Its hard and embarrassing </li></ul><ul><li>We have a working prototype using Wings </li></ul><ul><li>I can feel the potential productivity gains </li></ul><ul><li>My students are more doubtful </li></ul><ul><li>Its been a lot of fun and will enable us to improve our processes regardless of the workflow system itself </li></ul>
  50. 50. Problems with Publishing Workflows <ul><li>Workflows are not linear </li></ul><ul><li>Workflow : paper is not 1:1 </li></ul><ul><li>Confidentiality </li></ul><ul><li>Peer review </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure </li></ul><ul><li>Community acceptance </li></ul><ul><li>Reward system </li></ul><ul><li>No publisher seems willing to touch them </li></ul>
  51. 51. Where Will It All End?
  52. 52. General References <ul><li>What Do I Want from the Publisher of the Future PLoS Comp Biol 6(5): e1000787 </li></ul><ul><li>Fourth Paradigm: Data Intensive Scientific Discovery collaboration/fourthparadigm/ </li></ul>
  53. 53. References to Exemplars <ul><li>Semantic Biochemical Journal - 2010: Using Utopia </li></ul><ul><li>Article of the Future, Cell, 2009:
 </li></ul><ul><li>Prospect, Royal Society of Chemistry, 2009:
 </li></ul><ul><li>Adventures in Semantic Publishing, Oxford U, 2009: </li></ul><ul><li>The Structured Digital Abstract, Seringhaus/Gerstein, 2008
 </li></ul><ul><li>CWA Nanopublications – 2010
 </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
  54. 54. Acknowledgements <ul><li>BioLit Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lynn Fink </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Parker Williams </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Marco Martinez </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rahul Chandran </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Greg Quinn </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Microsoft Scholarly Communications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pablo Fernicola </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lee Dirks </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Savas Parastitidas </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Alex Wade </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tony Hey </li></ul></ul><ul><li>wwPDB Team </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Boki Beran </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wolfgnag Bluhm </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Andreas Prlic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Greg Quinn </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Peter Rose </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ben Yutick </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Chunxaio Zhu </li></ul></ul>
  55. 55. Questions? [email_address]