The document discusses the significant financial aspects of scholarly publishing, noting that journal spending amounts to $10 billion and overall research funding reaches $1.6 trillion. It highlights the need for improved research evaluation mechanisms to provide funders with granular and accurate data, while addressing the desires of authors for a more convenient submission process. The paper suggests that the evolving expectations of funders and authors are prompting operational changes in journal peer review systems to enhance data capture and workflow capabilities.

1. CRediT
Richard Wynne
https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwynne
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-0407

2. Journals
o Forum for authors and readers to share information
o Research “Evaluation Machines”

3. Following the money
o Forum for authors and readers to share information
Authors (and their proxies – libraries) journal
spending:
$10 Billion
o Research “Evaluation Machines”
Funders research spending: $1.6 Trillion
“4th edition of the STM report on scholarly publishing”
http://www.stm-assoc.org/2015_02_20_STM_Report_2015.pdf

4. The journal as research
“evaluation machine”
Journals and journal articles
Citations
Measures of “impact”
$ Funding review boards and tenure committees $
Altmetrics
The “machine is broken”
narrative:
Goal displacement
False precision
Simply not a good measure

5. Funders believe they have
been flying blind

6. So, what do funders
want?
o More granular and accurate data
o Broader access to research results
o Process improvements
o Big data

7. More granular/accurate data
o Who did the research (authors and co-authors)?
o What did they do?
o Which institution are they from?
o Who funded the research?

8. 3,500+ journals using ORCID Single-Sign-On!

9. CRediT Taxonomy
http://credit.casrai.org/
Lead
Equal
Supporting

10. What do Authors want from
the submission process?
o Speed
o Convenience
o No form filling
o No hassle

11. What do Funders and Institutions
want from the submission process?
o Accountability
o Structured data
o Accurate data
o Granular data

12. Who’s in the middle?
Funders: structured, Authors: Quick, convenient,
Accurate, granular data no hassle submission
The Journal!
Journal peer review system

13. Capturing Data

14. How to ingest a manuscript?

15. Summary
o $1.6 trillion spend on research funding
o Funders want better “evaluation machines”
o This is resulting in operational changes in peer
review
o In anticipation of these trends journals need to be
equipped with appropriate workflow capabilities

16. CRediT
https://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwynne
http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9217-0407