davis open access talk
DESCRIPTION
The slides for the talk on open access given by Dr. Gary Ward on Thursday, January 26, 2012.TRANSCRIPT
PLoS 2001
PLoS 2011
From PLoS to PMC and back again
The petition
The ASCB
PubMed Central
NIH Public Access policy
The access problem
Research
Teaching
Physicians
Patients, advocacy groups
Public Health officials
“…We pledge that, beginning in September 2001, we will publish in, edit or review for, and personally subscribe to only those scholarly and scientific journals that have agreed to grant unrestricted free distribu- tion rights to any and all original research reports that they have
The 2001 Public Library of Science Petition
published, through PubMed Central and similar online public resources, within 6 months of their initial publication date”
thum
bs.d
ream
stime.co
m
In 2009, Elsevier reported a profit of $1.1 billion on total revenues of $3.2 billion
thum
bs.d
ream
stime.co
m
In 2009, Elsevier reported a profit of $1.1 billion on total revenues of $3.2 billion
ASCB: Molecular Biology of the Cell
Access policy (since 2001): MBC in Press preprints are freely
available to anyone. Access to MBC Online is by subscription for two months, then freely available to anyone. All final articles aredeposited in PubMed Central.
Copyright: Author holds copyright under a
Bottom line, FY10: $350,683
Institutional subscription price: tiered pricing, range $450-750
Research articles Published 2010: 362
Creative Commons Noncommercial Share Alike license
How can a 2-month embargo period be sufficient to protect subscription
revenue?
>> Online hits to articles in the January issue are highest in the first 2-3 months after publication, then drop precipitously
ASCB: Advocacy for broader public access
1. Barriers to scientific communication slow scientific progress.
2. A comprehensive, searchable database will profoundly enhance scientists’ research productivity.
3. It is fair that taxpayers have access to the research results that they funded.
4. Subscription income will not be adversely affected by the deposit of research articles in PubMed Central for open access six months following publication.
5. The proposed policy does not preclude publishers from restricting access to other value-added content that is not the result of NIH-funded research.
The ASCB supports the proposed NIH policy on Public Access to NIH Research Information (NOT-OD-04-064) for the following reasons:
The NIH Public Access Policy
In accordance with Division G, Title II, Section 218 of PL 110-161 (Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ), the NIH voluntary Public Access Policy (NOT-OD-05-022) is now mandatory. The law states:
The Director of the National Institutes of Health shall require that all investigators funded by the NIH submit or have submitted for them to the National Library of Medicine’s PubMed Central an electronic version of their final, peer-reviewed manuscripts upon acceptance for publication, to be made publicly available no later than 12 months after the official date of publication: Provided, That the NIH shall implement the public access policy in a manner consistent with copyright law.
Compliance with this Policy remains a statutory requirement and a term and condition of the grant award and cooperative agreement.
Made permanent in 2009
Why Public Access?Why Public Access?
• ACCESS. Provide electronic access to NIH-funded research publications for patients, families, health professionals, scientists, teachers, and students.
• ARCHIVE. Keep a central archive of NIH-funded research publications—for now and in the future, preserving vital medical research results and information for years to come.
• ADVANCE SCIENCE. Create an information resource that will make it easier for scientists to mine medical research publications, and for NIH to manage better its entire research investment.
PLoS 2001
PLoS 2011
The petition
The ASCB
PubMed Central
NIH Public Access policy
• More than 2.3 million full text articles available
• More than 2.3 million full text articles available
• 500,000+ unique users retrieve 1 million articles every day
• 79% of the articles in PMC have been accessed 11 times or more
The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
ww
w.co
stum
eexpre
ss.com
The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
“This is the moment academic publishers gave up all pretence of being on the side of scientists … Elsevier's business does not make money by publishing our work, but by doing the exact opposite: restricting access to it.”
The legislative Whac-a-mole continues …
• Efforts to roll back access
• HR3699: The Research Works Act
• Efforts to improve access
• HR5037: Federal Research Public Access Act (FRPAA)
• HR5116: America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010
ww
w.co
stum
eexpre
ss.com
• Unsung heroes: SPARC
PLoS 2001
PLoS 2011
The petition
The ASCB
PubMed Central
NIH Public Access policy
Public AccessOpen Access
> Freely available online at some point
post-publication
ww
w.fre
nch
house
bnb.co
mww
w.b
loggerso
dear.co
m
Public Access Open Access
> Freely and immediately available online
> Copyright allows unrestricted reuse by
readers, as long as attribution is given
vs
Translation, etc…
Data reanalysis
Classroom use
Text mining
Semantic enrichment
“ Our aim is to catalyze a revolution in scientific publishing by providing a compelling demonstration of the value and feasibility of open-access publication. If we succeed… this online public library of science will form a valuable resource for science education, lead to more informed healthcare decisions by doctors and patients, level the playing field for scientists in smaller or less wealthy institutions, and ensure that no one will be unable to read an important paper just because his or her institution does not subscribe to a particular journal.”
(2003)
http
://ww
w.w
ired
.com
/wire
d/a
rchiv
e/1
2.0
4/
rave_p
r.htm
l
• Establish high quality journals– put PLoS and open access on the
map
PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)
• Build a more extensive OA publishing operation– an open access home for every
paper• Make the literature more useful
– to scientists and the public
PLoS Journals
2003 2004
• Professional editors• Highly selective• Added-value content/services
PLo
S B
iolo
gy
Aca
dem
ic EIC
htt
p:/
/ph
ylo
gen
om
ics.
blo
gsp
ot.
com
PLoS Journals
2003 2004 2005 2005 2005
2006 2007
PLoS’ publishing operations are profitable
Why publish in PLoS ONE?
• Open access, reasonable author charges
• Inclusive scope– a publication for the whole of science
• A new kind of peer review– Objective criteria: Is it technically
sound? Does it meet reporting standards? Are the conclusions justified based on the data?
– Not: interest, importance, significance• Streamlined production
– acceptance to publication in as little as 3 wk
• Post-publication evaluation tools
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery:
the proliferation of PLOS ONE clones
PLOS ONE: Challenges and lessons learned
• Dealing with rapid growth, scaling• Processes, people• Consistent editorial decision-making
• As the corpus grows:• Navigation of content• Outlier problems - quality of papers, processing time
• Establish high quality journals– put PLoS and open access on the
map
PLoS’ publishing strategy (2003)
• Build a more extensive OA publishing operation– an open access home for every
paper• Make the literature more useful
– to scientists and the public
√
√
PLoS (2011) : “Leading a Transformation
in Research Communication”
• Provide ways to overcome unnecessary barriers to immediate availability, access, and use of research
• Pursue a publishing strategy that optimizes the openness, quality, and integrity of the publication process
• Develop innovative approaches to the assessment, organization, and reuse of ideas and data
Experiments in progress
• Improved re-use of content > PLoS Hubs
• measuring impact at the article (not journal) level> article-level metrics: all journal content
• encourage more rapid and open data sharing> PLoS Currents
• post-publication discussion & comment> commenting tools: all journal content
• bridge the gap between research reporting and the broader public
> PLoS Blogs
!!! NO !!! !!! NO !!!
How do we measure the impact / importance
of a paper?• By the title / impact factor of the journal in which it was published
• Article level metrics
> citations to that specific article - scholarly (PMC, Scopus, Crossref, WoS) - other (Wikipedia, F1000)
> pageviews, pdf downloads > reader comments, notes, ratings > blog and media coverage > social media data mining
- Tweets, Facebook “likes”, Mendeley
How do we measure the impact / importance
of a paper? How can we help readers
decide what to read?
etc… etc….
http
://ww
w.p
losb
iolo
gy
.org
/artic
le/in
fo:d
oi/1
0.13
71
/jou
rna
l.pb
io.0
000
00
5 PLoS Article level metrics, v1: an example
ALMs, combined with journals whose only criterion for acceptance is being scientifically sound (e.g. PLoS ONE)
ALMs, combined with journals whose only criterion for acceptance is being scientifically sound (e.g. PLoS ONE)
http://www.altmetric.com/demos/plos.html
Article level metricsContent re-use
Post-publication discussion/commentArticle of the future?