SlideShare a Scribd company logo
Dr. Jon Tennant
@protohedgehog
Also..
• PLOS Paleo Community Editor
• Founder of paleorXiv
• Founder of the Open Science MOOC
• Palaeontologist
• ASAPbio ambassador, COS Ambassador
• Freelance journalist covering school comms
What do you think of when
you hear “published”?
How old do you think peer
review is?
Have you ever been
frustrated by the publishing
process?
How much do you hate the
term “Open Access”? http://whyopenresearch.org/
The Royal Society, 1845
Académie royale des
sciences, c.1671
The first journals appeared in
the mid-17th Century.
However..
The formalised practice that we
now call “peer review”
emerged in the early 19th
century.
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think
Henry Oldenburg – The
first Editor?
“Although the beginnings of "peer review"
are frequently associated with the Royal
Society of London when it took over
official responsibility for the Philosophical
Transactions in 1752, antecedents of peer
review practices go back to the 17th
century. ”
- David Kronick (1990)
Origins of editorial “peer review” as a
gentlemanly, constructive, discussion.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/380935
- Has full text articles going back to 1811.
- Current publishing house launched in 1988!
 Originality of research key as societies
sought public interest.
 Self-authorship dominant. Collaboration non-
existent.
 Origin of “peer review” as we now know it.
 Between 1,000-2,000 scientific periodicals.
 Nature launched around 1869.
 English becomes the language of science.
 Huge increase in the number of papers being published.
 Industry begins to get interested (££).
 Typewriters (1890s).
 Photocopiers (1959).
 Professional services become involved (££).
 Editorial.
 Publishing.
 Use of formalised peer review becomes more widespread.
 Around 21,000 peer reviewed journals (Dalen & Klamer, 2005).
 Geographic expansion.
 Specialisation of journals.
https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did-
too-27405
Based on a paper on
gravitational waves
submitted to Physical
Review in 1935.
“According to the physicist and historian of
science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a
single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer
review.”
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
I published a few things
in Nature when I was a PhD student
[in the 1960s] and almost anything
could get into it at the time, if it wasn't
actually wrong. Refereeing was pretty
erratic and I think they took more
notice of where it came from than the
content.50
- Walter Gratzer, 1966
http://www.nature.com/nature/history/timeline_1960s.html
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
articles/PMC4528400/
 The practice of editorial peer reviewing did
not become general until sometime after
World War II.
 Editorial peer review procedures did not
spread in an orderly way.
 Institutionalization of the process took
place mostly in the 20th century.
 To handle new problems in the numbers of
articles submitted.
 To meet the demands for expert authority
and objectivity in an increasingly
specialized world.
http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-
abstract/380937
https://www.timeshighereducation.com
/features/peer-review-not-old-you-
might-think
 The practices of peer review and publishing
are not set in stone.
 Journals began with learned societies – they
matter!
 Peer review and publishing are very diverse
processes.
 Should practices developed for a print era be
the same in a digital world?
 Is the ideal of peer review still matched by the
process?
 "The Present is the Key to the Past is the Key
to the Future". James Hutton
We spend 1/3 of the total global research
budget (~£59/175bn) on publishing &
communicating results that 99% of people
cannot access
http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activites-costs-flows-report.pdf
 We have an academic system where
researchers are forced to enter into a
publication-based economy dictated by
commercial values.
 The mantra ‘publish or perish’ is dead,
replaced by ‘publish and perish’ due to
under-funding and competitiveness in
climbing the academic career ladder.
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/pressroom/newsreleases/2017/june/acs-files-suit-against-sci-hub.html
https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/elsevier-victory-over-sci-hub-shows-research-corporate-asset
http://www.machinedesign.com/news/elsevi
er-restores-journal-access-german-
institutions
It doesn’t matter which ‘side’ you’re on. There are huge conflicts
happening, and they illustrate deep issues with our scholarly
communication system.
Peer Review Guidelines at Elsevier
http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines
 Librarians: serials crisis.
 Researchers: more visibility/citations.
 Economists: helps small businesses.
 Activists: morality, freedom, equality.
 Publishers: money, money, money.
 Funders: money, money, money .
 Editors: want quality content published.
 Policymakers: have to resolve all of this.
 Students: Quite like learning, apparently.
“There is a nearly unanimous perception
among molecular and cell biologists that
publishing has become the most discouraging
and frustrating part of research. The
trepidation level peaks at each stage of the
process: the editorial stage where rejection
without review has become the norm; the
review stage where reviewers frequently do
not fully understand the work or its
implications; and the revision stage, when
authors shoulder the disproportionate effort
to revise the paper per reviewers' demands.”
http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588
Peer review is.. “slow, expensive, profligate of academic
time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to
bias, and easily abused.”
- Richard Smith, former EiC of the BMJ
“Pre-publication peer review is no longer necessary
because the power of the internet now allows instant
publication of all results without requiring assessments
of their novelty or impact in the field.”
http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588
 “In the physical sciences, preprints have been de
rigueur for a quarter of a century—the majority of
research across a wide spectrum of disciplines is first
posted on arXiv as non‐peer‐reviewed manuscripts
(Ginsparg, 2016).”
 “Thus, more than 100,000 research manuscripts
annually on arXiv are open to comments from
colleagues, which fosters collaboration and helps
scientists to improve manuscripts before they are
submitted to a peer‐reviewed journal.”
http://emboj.embopress.org/content/early/2016/12/01/embj.201670030
 Researchers are all guilty of
“glam-humping”.
 Impact factors mean very, very
little.
 Except the higher it is, the more
likely you committed fraud.
 If you use the impact factor for
anything other than it’s intended
purpose, you are statistically
illiterate and should have all of
your research retracted.
http://www.nature.com/news/why-high-profile-
journals-have-more-retractions-1.15951
http://journal.frontiersin.org/articl
e/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=10.1371/journal.pone.0127502.g0
07
Percentage of papers published by the five major publishers in Physics
“...my CV needed a paper in a big-
name glam journal. Publishing in
this journal is seen as some kind of
holy grail...”
“...It does not feel like a good deal:
paper took 12 months to publish,
contains BnW figures, and cost me
deep in the purse.”
“...the amount we paid for the
paper is just subsidizing the paper
press of the journal, which society
members ‘demand’...”
“...the society will drive us to lose
any nostalgia if they don’t evolve;
worryingly for them, the latest
generation don’t give a shit about
the past.”
“The original bill made us spit out
our tea.”
“I will not be publishing with this
journal in the near-future; it left a
really bad taste.
“...it is the RIGHT place for many
key papers, just the WRONG
price.”
$4675 c. $8000$7500
Scholarly journal expenditures
percentage increase 1986–2010
compared to consumer price index. Data
from Association for Research Libraries.
 OA publishers were some of the first to experiment
with peer review
 PLOS ONE – megajournal with ‘objective peer
review’ (2006)
 Publishes “scientifically rigorous research regardless
of novelty”
 Frontiers – OA journal series with “interactive
collaborative peer review” (2007)
 “direct online dialogue, enabling quick iterations and
facilitating consensus”
 eLife – ‘Takes the pain out of peer review’ (2012)
https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/young-researchers-preach-open-access-yet-many-dont-practice
“Researchers under 35 as well as PhD candidates, master’s students and research
assistants had the least experience with open-access publishing.”
Almost all journals allow some form of it
Easily discoverable via e.g., Unpaywall
We all know “publishing isn’t free”
Real question: How much should it be?
https://figshare.com/articles/How_to_make_your_research_open_access_
For_free_and_legally_/5285512
http://openaccess.eprints.org/index.php?/archives/179-Raincoat-Science.html
“60.8% of researchers do not self-archive
their work even when it is free and in
keeping with journal policy.”
- Smith et al., (2017)
https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-017-0235-3
“In a field where OA seems of practical and
ethical importance for the sharing of
knowledge promoting health equity, it is
surprising that researchers do not make
their papers available when they are legally
able to do so without any cost.”
- Smith et al., (2017)
 Publishing and peer review has become
synonymous with quality.
 The myth that journals and peer review
belong together.
 The myth that “it has always been this
way”.
 An industry that relies on perpetuating this
myth.
 Conflation of the ideal with the process.
 A ‘prestige economy’ based on publications,
and the brands associated with them.
No choice in
publishing
venue
Feel forced to
play the game
Reinforcement
of power
imbalances
Cultural inertia
and innovation
stifling
Commercial
interests govern
Slowly but surely
adapting to the Web of
1995
Why didn’t Open Access and the internet
cause the extinction of the dinosaurs
publishers?
People realise that the Web
is actually pretty powerful.
Most new tools developed
around a journal-based
system. Therefore depend
on publishers for
sustenance.
Very little thought generally
into long-term
sustainability.
“If preprints should attain the dominant
role they have in physics, publishing
papers in journals may remain attractive
only in journals that add real value to
the scientific communication process.”
- Bernd Pulverer (2016)
https://twitter.com/Graham_Coop/status/819738131612123137
http://emboj.embopress.org/content/e
arly/2016/12/01/embj.201670030
It only took 25 years..
https://www.nature.com/news/heavyweight-funders-
back-central-site-for-life-sciences-preprints-1.21466
Credit: Jordan Anaya
It’s your work. Publish where you want. But don’t lock it up.
 “The European Commission’s vision is
that information already paid for by the
public purse should not be paid for again
each time it is accessed or used, and that
it should benefit European companies and
citizens to the full.”
 http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/
data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/
h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf
Image Credit: dee_ , Flickr CC BY-NC-SA
Everywhere we are using networks to evaluate
information on the Web. Why not in science?
 Imagine Wikipedia, Stack Exchange,
and GitHub all had a baby together..
 Research communities coming
together to use Web technologies for
what they were actually designed for
 We could help to redefine the 3 core
aspects of any good peer review
process:
 Quality control and moderation
 Performance and engagement
incentives
 Certification and reputation
Use the power of professional
networks to evaluate scientific
results.
Traditional
 Conducted in a closed system
 Coupled with journal venue
 Exclusive with few actors
 Associates journal brand with
researcher prestige
 Based on trust
 Cannot be objectively assessed
Future
 Self-organised communities and
governance structures
 Elected ‘mods’ as editors
 Social norms dictate engagement
 Continuous process
 Inclusive community participation
 Quality defined by process of
engagement
 Independent of journals
Traditional
 Altruism
 A quid pro quo sense of duty
 Imbalanced
 Often unrewarded
 Often unrecognised
 Certification and reputation
decoupled
Future
 Link to academic profiles (e.g.,
Publons, ORCID, ScienceOpen)
 Virtual engagement rewards
 Quantified performance indices
 Community-based evaluation
 Badges?
 Reviewing the reviewers
 Encourages positive engagement
Traditional
 Terrible
 Virtually non-existent
 Journal-based
 Nothing else matters (besides the
impact factor)
 Reputation basically pilfered by
journals to build their brands
Future
 Transparent and interactive
 Community evaluation process
 Fully identified
 Connected to researcher profiles
 At the object and individual level
 Evolving and continuous process
 Can be easily quantified
 Publishers (most of them)
 Reconciling commercial interests with that of the wider public
 Commercial hi-jacking of public policies
 An almost complete lack of leadership from researchers
 An almost complete lack of education for researchers
 No effective communication strategy anywhere
 No coalescence of a globally heterogeneous community
 Total misalignment of open science with current incentive structures
 Copyright law restraints
 No linking to wider issues of public literacy in science
“For better or for worse, science will
have to live with traditional
peer‐reviewed journals, which are,
in any case, already evolving and
adapting.”
http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588
But..
• Do we really need journals?
• Do we really want journals..?
https://twitter.com/AsuraEnkhbayar/st
atus/838423030464409600
 Working models exist already that show
publishing can be better as a process
 Simultaneous uptake of new models
across the whole scholarly ecosystem
 Standardised communication between a
range of key participants
 Interoperability between specific and
diverse communities
 Increasing the recognition of more than
just research paperss across the board
 Getting research funders (and
researchers..) interested
 Education and training for our
students.
 Learn skills for new ways of doing
research.
 Empowerment and leadership for the
next generation.
 Shifting power dynamics to reduce
bias and abuse.
 Building a global community based on
sharing and collaboration.
 Massive-scale engagement to re-align
Open Science with current incentive
structures.
 Building a peer review and scholarly communication
platform designed for a Web-native research community
 Resolution of all the technical and social issues
associated with peer review
 Disruption of the entire scholarly communication process
 Decoupling of peer review and communication from
journals
 Community adoption of standards to encourage practice
and adoption
 Research communication in the hands of researchers
 Saving the global research community $billions every
year
The past, present, and future of publishing

More Related Content

What's hot

Edit a-thon tutorial slides
Edit a-thon tutorial slidesEdit a-thon tutorial slides
Edit a-thon tutorial slides
anitaconchita
 
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid itPredatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
UQSCADS
 
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
Keita Bando
 
What the open access movement doesn't want you to know
What the open access movement doesn't want you to knowWhat the open access movement doesn't want you to know
What the open access movement doesn't want you to know
Pattie Pattie
 
Predatory publishing 2016
Predatory publishing 2016Predatory publishing 2016
Predatory publishing 2016
UQSCADS
 
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
DOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)
 
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
Jay Patel
 
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid ThemPredatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
EV Science Consultant | Medical Manuscript Writing & Editing Services
 
Predatory publishing
Predatory publishingPredatory publishing
Predatory publishing
Roxanne Missingham
 
Open Access Initiatives
Open Access Initiatives Open Access Initiatives
Open Access Initiatives
drningappaarabagonda
 
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory JournalsAfternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
Northern Campus Library, Hokkaido University
 
Creative commons
Creative commonsCreative commons
Creative commons
Dan Stafford
 
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social ScienceFrom "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
Ankara University
 
Reproducibility, open access, open science
Reproducibility, open access, open scienceReproducibility, open access, open science
Reproducibility, open access, open science
Alex Holcombe
 
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
Simon Huggard
 
Research gate engagement_mm
Research gate engagement_mmResearch gate engagement_mm
Research gate engagement_mm
Daniela Casiraghi
 
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the FactsOpen Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
Jill Cirasella
 
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
DeVonne Parks, CEM
 
Principles and practice of Open Science
Principles and practice of Open SciencePrinciples and practice of Open Science
Principles and practice of Open Science
TheContentMine
 
WikipediaWise
WikipediaWiseWikipediaWise
WikipediaWise
Kathy Fester
 

What's hot (20)

Edit a-thon tutorial slides
Edit a-thon tutorial slidesEdit a-thon tutorial slides
Edit a-thon tutorial slides
 
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid itPredatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
Predatory publishing: what it is and how to avoid it
 
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
A Brief Review of ‘Social Networks for Scientists’
 
What the open access movement doesn't want you to know
What the open access movement doesn't want you to knowWhat the open access movement doesn't want you to know
What the open access movement doesn't want you to know
 
Predatory publishing 2016
Predatory publishing 2016Predatory publishing 2016
Predatory publishing 2016
 
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
Questionable Publishers, National Scholarly Editor's Forum, Cape Town, July 3...
 
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
Jay patel Open Access TIPPA Midwest presentation june 2013
 
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid ThemPredatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
Predatory journals: Why and How to Avoid Them
 
Predatory publishing
Predatory publishingPredatory publishing
Predatory publishing
 
Open Access Initiatives
Open Access Initiatives Open Access Initiatives
Open Access Initiatives
 
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory JournalsAfternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
Afternoon Talk on Open Access and Predatory Journals
 
Creative commons
Creative commonsCreative commons
Creative commons
 
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social ScienceFrom "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
From "Open the Social Sciences" to Open Social Science
 
Reproducibility, open access, open science
Reproducibility, open access, open scienceReproducibility, open access, open science
Reproducibility, open access, open science
 
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
Predatory publishing: pitfalls for the unwary. 25 Oct 2013
 
Research gate engagement_mm
Research gate engagement_mmResearch gate engagement_mm
Research gate engagement_mm
 
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the FactsOpen Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
Open Access Theses & Dissertations: Airing the Anxieties & Finding the Facts
 
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
January 13, 2016 NISO Webinar: Ensuring the Scholarly Record: Scholarly Retra...
 
Principles and practice of Open Science
Principles and practice of Open SciencePrinciples and practice of Open Science
Principles and practice of Open Science
 
WikipediaWise
WikipediaWiseWikipediaWise
WikipediaWise
 

Similar to The past, present, and future of publishing

HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly JournalsHERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
Ina Smith
 
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
UKSG: connecting the knowledge community
 
Open access for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
Open access  for researchers and students, research managers and publishersOpen access  for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
Open access for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
Iryna Kuchma
 
Scholarly communication
Scholarly communicationScholarly communication
Scholarly communication
jennyeri
 
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزيمحاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
مركز البحوث الأقسام العلمية
 
Advocating for change in the scientific enterprise
Advocating for change in the scientific enterpriseAdvocating for change in the scientific enterprise
Advocating for change in the scientific enterprise
Jessica Polka
 
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the future
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the futureScience in the context of journals, Open, and the future
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the future
Benjamin Laken
 
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the ResearchOpen Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
Iryna Kuchma
 
Open Access: Improving scholarly communication
Open Access: Improving scholarly communicationOpen Access: Improving scholarly communication
Open Access: Improving scholarly communication
Iryna Kuchma
 
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptxUnit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
SriSk6
 
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Jamie Bisset
 
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers
Open access  for researchers, policy makers and research managersOpen access  for researchers, policy makers and research managers
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers
Iryna Kuchma
 
Open Access: Which Side Are You On
Open Access: Which Side Are You OnOpen Access: Which Side Are You On
Open Access: Which Side Are You On
Jill Cirasella
 
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
tccafrica
 
Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
Mbmh Seminar Leigh MantleMbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
lmantle
 
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptxPRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
SriSk6
 
Evolution of peer_review2
Evolution of peer_review2Evolution of peer_review2
Evolution of peer_review2
Hilary Graham
 
Open access for researchers and research managers
Open access  for researchers and research managersOpen access  for researchers and research managers
Open access for researchers and research managers
Iryna Kuchma
 
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolutionA guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
Célio Moura Neto
 
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
Jill Cirasella
 

Similar to The past, present, and future of publishing (20)

HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly JournalsHERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
HERS SA Academy 8 September 2014: Workshop on Scholarly Journals
 
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
UKSG Conference 2015 - “Peer review is dead, long live peer review.” Michael ...
 
Open access for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
Open access  for researchers and students, research managers and publishersOpen access  for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
Open access for researchers and students, research managers and publishers
 
Scholarly communication
Scholarly communicationScholarly communication
Scholarly communication
 
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزيمحاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
محاضرة (أخلاقيات البحث العلمي) د.فضيلة العنزي
 
Advocating for change in the scientific enterprise
Advocating for change in the scientific enterpriseAdvocating for change in the scientific enterprise
Advocating for change in the scientific enterprise
 
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the future
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the futureScience in the context of journals, Open, and the future
Science in the context of journals, Open, and the future
 
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the ResearchOpen Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
Open Access Advantages, Quality and Progress of the Research
 
Open Access: Improving scholarly communication
Open Access: Improving scholarly communicationOpen Access: Improving scholarly communication
Open Access: Improving scholarly communication
 
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptxUnit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
Unit 1 Scholarly Communication.pptx
 
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
Publishing your research: Open Access (introduction & overview)
 
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers
Open access  for researchers, policy makers and research managersOpen access  for researchers, policy makers and research managers
Open access for researchers, policy makers and research managers
 
Open Access: Which Side Are You On
Open Access: Which Side Are You OnOpen Access: Which Side Are You On
Open Access: Which Side Are You On
 
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
Publishing  in Credible Journals and disseminating Research to different Audi...
 
Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
Mbmh Seminar Leigh MantleMbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
Mbmh Seminar Leigh Mantle
 
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptxPRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
PRESENTATION Scholarly communication.pptx
 
Evolution of peer_review2
Evolution of peer_review2Evolution of peer_review2
Evolution of peer_review2
 
Open access for researchers and research managers
Open access  for researchers and research managersOpen access  for researchers and research managers
Open access for researchers and research managers
 
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolutionA guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
A guide to peer review in ecology and evolution
 
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
Of CUNY, By CUNY, For CUNY: How We All Benefit from Open Access and Why We Al...
 

More from Jonathan Tennant

ScienceOpen for Researchers
ScienceOpen for ResearchersScienceOpen for Researchers
ScienceOpen for Researchers
Jonathan Tennant
 
Championing open science as an early career researcher
Championing open science as an early career researcherChampioning open science as an early career researcher
Championing open science as an early career researcher
Jonathan Tennant
 
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talkISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
Jonathan Tennant
 
Romer session presentation
Romer session presentationRomer session presentation
Romer session presentation
Jonathan Tennant
 
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentationProgressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
Jonathan Tennant
 
Being Open as a student
Being Open as a studentBeing Open as a student
Being Open as a student
Jonathan Tennant
 
Wearing 'open' on your sleeve
Wearing 'open' on your sleeveWearing 'open' on your sleeve
Wearing 'open' on your sleeve
Jonathan Tennant
 
Altmetricon 2015
Altmetricon 2015Altmetricon 2015
Altmetricon 2015
Jonathan Tennant
 

More from Jonathan Tennant (8)

ScienceOpen for Researchers
ScienceOpen for ResearchersScienceOpen for Researchers
ScienceOpen for Researchers
 
Championing open science as an early career researcher
Championing open science as an early career researcherChampioning open science as an early career researcher
Championing open science as an early career researcher
 
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talkISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
ISMTE 2016 Keynote talk
 
Romer session presentation
Romer session presentationRomer session presentation
Romer session presentation
 
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentationProgressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
Progressive Palaeontology 2016 presentation
 
Being Open as a student
Being Open as a studentBeing Open as a student
Being Open as a student
 
Wearing 'open' on your sleeve
Wearing 'open' on your sleeveWearing 'open' on your sleeve
Wearing 'open' on your sleeve
 
Altmetricon 2015
Altmetricon 2015Altmetricon 2015
Altmetricon 2015
 

Recently uploaded

WEB PROGRAMMING bharathiar university bca unitII
WEB PROGRAMMING  bharathiar university bca unitIIWEB PROGRAMMING  bharathiar university bca unitII
WEB PROGRAMMING bharathiar university bca unitII
VinodhiniRavi2
 
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
Sérgio Sacani
 
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
Creative-Biolabs
 
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptxacanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
muralinath2
 
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptxTOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
shubhijain836
 
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video DetectionExplainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
VasileiosMezaris
 
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptxthe fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
parminder0808singh
 
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
RDhivya6
 
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdfGadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
PirithiRaju
 
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptxgastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
Shekar Boddu
 
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
abhinayakamasamudram
 
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptxSynopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
FarhanaHussain18
 
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdfAJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
AJAY KUMAR
 
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
Sérgio Sacani
 
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
PABOLU TEJASREE
 
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.pptNereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
underratedsunrise
 
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
vimalveerammal
 
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant Spider of Congo and Moke...
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant  Spider of Congo and Moke...Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant  Spider of Congo and Moke...
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant Spider of Congo and Moke...
MrSproy
 
Post translation modification by Suyash Garg
Post translation modification by Suyash GargPost translation modification by Suyash Garg
Post translation modification by Suyash Garg
suyashempire
 
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
Sérgio Sacani
 

Recently uploaded (20)

WEB PROGRAMMING bharathiar university bca unitII
WEB PROGRAMMING  bharathiar university bca unitIIWEB PROGRAMMING  bharathiar university bca unitII
WEB PROGRAMMING bharathiar university bca unitII
 
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
Compositions of iron-meteorite parent bodies constrainthe structure of the pr...
 
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
Mechanisms and Applications of Antiviral Neutralizing Antibodies - Creative B...
 
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptxacanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
acanthocytes_causes_etiology_clinical sognificance-future.pptx
 
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptxTOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
TOPIC OF DISCUSSION: CENTRIFUGATION SLIDESHARE.pptx
 
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video DetectionExplainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
Explainable Deepfake Image/Video Detection
 
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptxthe fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
the fundamental unit of life CBSE class 9.pptx
 
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
23PH301 - Optics - Unit 2 - Interference
 
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdfGadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
Gadgets for management of stored product pests_Dr.UPR.pdf
 
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptxgastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
gastroretentive drug delivery system-PPT.pptx
 
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
Reaching the age of Adolescence- Class 8
 
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptxSynopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
Synopsis presentation VDR gene polymorphism and anemia (2).pptx
 
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdfAJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
AJAY KUMAR NIET GreNo Guava Project File.pdf
 
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
Evidence of Jet Activity from the Secondary Black Hole in the OJ 287 Binary S...
 
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
Analysis of Polygenic Traits (GPB-602)
 
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.pptNereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
Nereis Type Study for BSc 1st semester.ppt
 
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
Quality assurance B.pharm 6th semester BP606T UNIT 5
 
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant Spider of Congo and Moke...
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant  Spider of Congo and Moke...Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant  Spider of Congo and Moke...
Evaluation and Identification of J'BaFofi the Giant Spider of Congo and Moke...
 
Post translation modification by Suyash Garg
Post translation modification by Suyash GargPost translation modification by Suyash Garg
Post translation modification by Suyash Garg
 
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
SDSS1335+0728: The awakening of a ∼ 106M⊙ black hole⋆
 

The past, present, and future of publishing

  • 2. Also.. • PLOS Paleo Community Editor • Founder of paleorXiv • Founder of the Open Science MOOC • Palaeontologist • ASAPbio ambassador, COS Ambassador • Freelance journalist covering school comms
  • 3.
  • 4. What do you think of when you hear “published”? How old do you think peer review is? Have you ever been frustrated by the publishing process? How much do you hate the term “Open Access”? http://whyopenresearch.org/
  • 5.
  • 6. The Royal Society, 1845 Académie royale des sciences, c.1671 The first journals appeared in the mid-17th Century. However.. The formalised practice that we now call “peer review” emerged in the early 19th century. https://www.timeshighereducation.com/features/peer-review-not-old-you-might-think
  • 7. Henry Oldenburg – The first Editor? “Although the beginnings of "peer review" are frequently associated with the Royal Society of London when it took over official responsibility for the Philosophical Transactions in 1752, antecedents of peer review practices go back to the 17th century. ” - David Kronick (1990) Origins of editorial “peer review” as a gentlemanly, constructive, discussion. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/380935
  • 8. - Has full text articles going back to 1811. - Current publishing house launched in 1988!
  • 9.  Originality of research key as societies sought public interest.  Self-authorship dominant. Collaboration non- existent.  Origin of “peer review” as we now know it.  Between 1,000-2,000 scientific periodicals.  Nature launched around 1869.
  • 10.  English becomes the language of science.  Huge increase in the number of papers being published.  Industry begins to get interested (££).  Typewriters (1890s).  Photocopiers (1959).  Professional services become involved (££).  Editorial.  Publishing.  Use of formalised peer review becomes more widespread.  Around 21,000 peer reviewed journals (Dalen & Klamer, 2005).  Geographic expansion.  Specialisation of journals.
  • 11. https://theconversation.com/hate-the-peer-review-process-einstein-did- too-27405 Based on a paper on gravitational waves submitted to Physical Review in 1935. “According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review.” http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/
  • 12. I published a few things in Nature when I was a PhD student [in the 1960s] and almost anything could get into it at the time, if it wasn't actually wrong. Refereeing was pretty erratic and I think they took more notice of where it came from than the content.50 - Walter Gratzer, 1966 http://www.nature.com/nature/history/timeline_1960s.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ articles/PMC4528400/
  • 13.  The practice of editorial peer reviewing did not become general until sometime after World War II.  Editorial peer review procedures did not spread in an orderly way.  Institutionalization of the process took place mostly in the 20th century.  To handle new problems in the numbers of articles submitted.  To meet the demands for expert authority and objectivity in an increasingly specialized world. http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/380937 https://www.timeshighereducation.com /features/peer-review-not-old-you- might-think
  • 14.  The practices of peer review and publishing are not set in stone.  Journals began with learned societies – they matter!  Peer review and publishing are very diverse processes.  Should practices developed for a print era be the same in a digital world?  Is the ideal of peer review still matched by the process?  "The Present is the Key to the Past is the Key to the Future". James Hutton
  • 15.
  • 16. We spend 1/3 of the total global research budget (~£59/175bn) on publishing & communicating results that 99% of people cannot access http://www.rin.ac.uk/system/files/attachments/Activites-costs-flows-report.pdf
  • 17.  We have an academic system where researchers are forced to enter into a publication-based economy dictated by commercial values.  The mantra ‘publish or perish’ is dead, replaced by ‘publish and perish’ due to under-funding and competitiveness in climbing the academic career ladder.
  • 19. It doesn’t matter which ‘side’ you’re on. There are huge conflicts happening, and they illustrate deep issues with our scholarly communication system.
  • 20. Peer Review Guidelines at Elsevier http://www.elsevier.com/reviewers/reviewer-guidelines
  • 21.  Librarians: serials crisis.  Researchers: more visibility/citations.  Economists: helps small businesses.  Activists: morality, freedom, equality.  Publishers: money, money, money.  Funders: money, money, money .  Editors: want quality content published.  Policymakers: have to resolve all of this.  Students: Quite like learning, apparently.
  • 22. “There is a nearly unanimous perception among molecular and cell biologists that publishing has become the most discouraging and frustrating part of research. The trepidation level peaks at each stage of the process: the editorial stage where rejection without review has become the norm; the review stage where reviewers frequently do not fully understand the work or its implications; and the revision stage, when authors shoulder the disproportionate effort to revise the paper per reviewers' demands.” http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588
  • 23. Peer review is.. “slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.” - Richard Smith, former EiC of the BMJ “Pre-publication peer review is no longer necessary because the power of the internet now allows instant publication of all results without requiring assessments of their novelty or impact in the field.” http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588
  • 24.  “In the physical sciences, preprints have been de rigueur for a quarter of a century—the majority of research across a wide spectrum of disciplines is first posted on arXiv as non‐peer‐reviewed manuscripts (Ginsparg, 2016).”  “Thus, more than 100,000 research manuscripts annually on arXiv are open to comments from colleagues, which fosters collaboration and helps scientists to improve manuscripts before they are submitted to a peer‐reviewed journal.” http://emboj.embopress.org/content/early/2016/12/01/embj.201670030
  • 25.  Researchers are all guilty of “glam-humping”.  Impact factors mean very, very little.  Except the higher it is, the more likely you committed fraud.  If you use the impact factor for anything other than it’s intended purpose, you are statistically illiterate and should have all of your research retracted. http://www.nature.com/news/why-high-profile- journals-have-more-retractions-1.15951 http://journal.frontiersin.org/articl e/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full
  • 27. “...my CV needed a paper in a big- name glam journal. Publishing in this journal is seen as some kind of holy grail...” “...It does not feel like a good deal: paper took 12 months to publish, contains BnW figures, and cost me deep in the purse.” “...the amount we paid for the paper is just subsidizing the paper press of the journal, which society members ‘demand’...” “...the society will drive us to lose any nostalgia if they don’t evolve; worryingly for them, the latest generation don’t give a shit about the past.” “The original bill made us spit out our tea.” “I will not be publishing with this journal in the near-future; it left a really bad taste. “...it is the RIGHT place for many key papers, just the WRONG price.” $4675 c. $8000$7500
  • 28. Scholarly journal expenditures percentage increase 1986–2010 compared to consumer price index. Data from Association for Research Libraries.
  • 29.  OA publishers were some of the first to experiment with peer review  PLOS ONE – megajournal with ‘objective peer review’ (2006)  Publishes “scientifically rigorous research regardless of novelty”  Frontiers – OA journal series with “interactive collaborative peer review” (2007)  “direct online dialogue, enabling quick iterations and facilitating consensus”  eLife – ‘Takes the pain out of peer review’ (2012)
  • 30. https://www.natureindex.com/news-blog/young-researchers-preach-open-access-yet-many-dont-practice “Researchers under 35 as well as PhD candidates, master’s students and research assistants had the least experience with open-access publishing.”
  • 31.
  • 32. Almost all journals allow some form of it Easily discoverable via e.g., Unpaywall We all know “publishing isn’t free” Real question: How much should it be? https://figshare.com/articles/How_to_make_your_research_open_access_ For_free_and_legally_/5285512
  • 34.
  • 35. “60.8% of researchers do not self-archive their work even when it is free and in keeping with journal policy.” - Smith et al., (2017) https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-017-0235-3 “In a field where OA seems of practical and ethical importance for the sharing of knowledge promoting health equity, it is surprising that researchers do not make their papers available when they are legally able to do so without any cost.” - Smith et al., (2017)
  • 36.  Publishing and peer review has become synonymous with quality.  The myth that journals and peer review belong together.  The myth that “it has always been this way”.  An industry that relies on perpetuating this myth.  Conflation of the ideal with the process.  A ‘prestige economy’ based on publications, and the brands associated with them.
  • 37.
  • 38. No choice in publishing venue Feel forced to play the game Reinforcement of power imbalances Cultural inertia and innovation stifling Commercial interests govern
  • 39. Slowly but surely adapting to the Web of 1995
  • 40. Why didn’t Open Access and the internet cause the extinction of the dinosaurs publishers?
  • 41. People realise that the Web is actually pretty powerful. Most new tools developed around a journal-based system. Therefore depend on publishers for sustenance. Very little thought generally into long-term sustainability.
  • 42. “If preprints should attain the dominant role they have in physics, publishing papers in journals may remain attractive only in journals that add real value to the scientific communication process.” - Bernd Pulverer (2016) https://twitter.com/Graham_Coop/status/819738131612123137 http://emboj.embopress.org/content/e arly/2016/12/01/embj.201670030 It only took 25 years..
  • 44. It’s your work. Publish where you want. But don’t lock it up.
  • 45.
  • 46.  “The European Commission’s vision is that information already paid for by the public purse should not be paid for again each time it is accessed or used, and that it should benefit European companies and citizens to the full.”  http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/ data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/hi/oa_pilot/ h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf
  • 47. Image Credit: dee_ , Flickr CC BY-NC-SA Everywhere we are using networks to evaluate information on the Web. Why not in science?
  • 48.  Imagine Wikipedia, Stack Exchange, and GitHub all had a baby together..  Research communities coming together to use Web technologies for what they were actually designed for  We could help to redefine the 3 core aspects of any good peer review process:  Quality control and moderation  Performance and engagement incentives  Certification and reputation
  • 49. Use the power of professional networks to evaluate scientific results.
  • 50. Traditional  Conducted in a closed system  Coupled with journal venue  Exclusive with few actors  Associates journal brand with researcher prestige  Based on trust  Cannot be objectively assessed Future  Self-organised communities and governance structures  Elected ‘mods’ as editors  Social norms dictate engagement  Continuous process  Inclusive community participation  Quality defined by process of engagement  Independent of journals
  • 51. Traditional  Altruism  A quid pro quo sense of duty  Imbalanced  Often unrewarded  Often unrecognised  Certification and reputation decoupled Future  Link to academic profiles (e.g., Publons, ORCID, ScienceOpen)  Virtual engagement rewards  Quantified performance indices  Community-based evaluation  Badges?  Reviewing the reviewers  Encourages positive engagement
  • 52. Traditional  Terrible  Virtually non-existent  Journal-based  Nothing else matters (besides the impact factor)  Reputation basically pilfered by journals to build their brands Future  Transparent and interactive  Community evaluation process  Fully identified  Connected to researcher profiles  At the object and individual level  Evolving and continuous process  Can be easily quantified
  • 53.  Publishers (most of them)  Reconciling commercial interests with that of the wider public  Commercial hi-jacking of public policies  An almost complete lack of leadership from researchers  An almost complete lack of education for researchers  No effective communication strategy anywhere  No coalescence of a globally heterogeneous community  Total misalignment of open science with current incentive structures  Copyright law restraints  No linking to wider issues of public literacy in science
  • 54. “For better or for worse, science will have to live with traditional peer‐reviewed journals, which are, in any case, already evolving and adapting.” http://embor.embopress.org/content/16/12/1588 But.. • Do we really need journals? • Do we really want journals..? https://twitter.com/AsuraEnkhbayar/st atus/838423030464409600
  • 55.  Working models exist already that show publishing can be better as a process  Simultaneous uptake of new models across the whole scholarly ecosystem  Standardised communication between a range of key participants  Interoperability between specific and diverse communities  Increasing the recognition of more than just research paperss across the board  Getting research funders (and researchers..) interested
  • 56.  Education and training for our students.  Learn skills for new ways of doing research.  Empowerment and leadership for the next generation.  Shifting power dynamics to reduce bias and abuse.  Building a global community based on sharing and collaboration.  Massive-scale engagement to re-align Open Science with current incentive structures.
  • 57.  Building a peer review and scholarly communication platform designed for a Web-native research community  Resolution of all the technical and social issues associated with peer review  Disruption of the entire scholarly communication process  Decoupling of peer review and communication from journals  Community adoption of standards to encourage practice and adoption  Research communication in the hands of researchers  Saving the global research community $billions every year

Editor's Notes

  1. Take this message to the people moaning about not getting research council funding cuts and the fact their “great idea” isn’t being funded Would they prefer this money in their pockets?