Upload
kristina-alyson-bates
View
215
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
www.plos.org
Re-engineering the functions of journals
Mark PattersonDirector of Publishing, PLoS
CERN Workshop on Innovations inScholarly Communication (OAI7)
June 23, 2011
www.plos.org
Research communication (print)
Publication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Reje
cts
Funding
www.plos.org
Research communication (online)
Publication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Reje
cts
Funding
www.plos.org
Functions to be re-engineered
• Dissemination– Open access– Growth and progress
• Organization of content– Decoupling technical and impact
assessment
www.plos.org
Re-engineering dissemination
Open Access
www.flickr.com/photos/chris_short/79656776/
Open access• Free, immediate access
• Unrestricted reuse
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photos_clinker/295038831
www.plos.org
No permissionrequired
for any reuse
Translation
Redistribution
Photocopying
Coursepacks
Reproductionof figures
Deposit indatabases
Downloadingdata
Text mining
www.plos.org
Open access journals
Publishing is the final step in a research project Public
DigitalLibrary
GovFundersInstitutionsIndustry
$Publisher
Reader
Researcher
$
www.plos.org
PLoS BiologyOctober, 2003
PLoS MedicineOctober, 2004
$2900
PLoS Community JournalsJune-September, 2005 October, 2007
$2250
PLoS ONEDecember,2006$1350
www.plos.org
Growth in submissions and publications
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
SubmissionsPublications
www.plos.org
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
BMC
PLoS
Hindawi
Growth in three OA publishers
Thanks to Matt Cockerill (BMC) and Paul Peters (Hindawi)
Laakso M, et al. et al. (2011) The Development of Open Access Journal Publishing from 1993 to 2009. PLoS ONE 6(6): e20961. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0020961
articles
journals
In 2009, 7.7% of all peer-reviewed articles were gold OA
www.plos.org
Growth in OA at PMC
0
100000
200000
300000
400000500000
600000
700000
800000
900000
1000000
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Rec
ord
s
0.00%2.00%4.00%6.00%8.00%10.00%12.00%14.00%16.00%18.00%20.00%22.00%
PubMed %PMC %OA
7% of PubMed is present within the OA subset of PMC
PubMed
%PMC
%OA
www.oaspa.org
www.plos.org
Re-engineering organization of
content
www.flickr.com/photos/sewpixie/2374778051/
Journals are a giant sorting mechanism
www.plos.org
Online, content can be enhanced and organized after publication
All the more so, if it’s Open Access
www.plos.org
• Editorial criteria– Scientifically rigorous– Ethical– Properly reported– Conclusions supported by the data
PLoS ONE’s Key Innovation – The editorial process
• Editors and reviewers do not ask– How important is the work?– Which is the relevant audience?
• Use online tools to sort and filter scholarly content after publication, not before
www.plos.org
Publications by PLoS ONE per quarter since launch
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Publications in PLoS ONE per quarter since launch
www.plos.org
Year Submissions Publications % of annual PubMed
2007 2497 1231 0.16%
2008 4401 2723 0.34%
2009 6819 4404 0.52%
2010 13845 6749 0.84%
2011 >22,000* >12,000* ~1.5%*
*Projections
The largest peer-reviewed journal– >50,000 authors– >1500 Academic Editors
PLoS ONE – growth
www.plos.org
PLoS ONE – citations
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10+
Citations (Scopus)
Articles(2009)
www.plos.org
PLoS ONE clones
• BMJ Open• SAGE Open • Scientific Reports (Nature Publishing Group)• G3 (Genetics Society of America)• AIP Advances (American Inst Phys) • Physical Review X (American Phys Society)• Biology Open (Company of Biologists) • Open Biology (Royal Society)• Cell Reports (Elsevier, Cell Press)• QScience Connect (Bloomsbury Qatar Foundation Journals)
www.plos.org
Features of “OA Megajournals”
• Open Access• Peer-reviewed for rigour not “impact”• Post-publication mechanisms (eg metrics)• Supported by publication fees• Built on a strong brand • Scalable, and can become very large
100 OA megajournals could account for 50% of the literature in 5 years
www.plos.org
Organizing content after publication
Part 1 - impact
The impact factor is…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2w2/191545978/sizes/z/in/photostream/
www.plos.org
How could we measure ‘impact’?
• Citations• Web usage• Expert Ratings• Social bookmarking• Community rating• Media/blog coverage• Commenting activity• and more…
Current technology now makes it possible to add these metrics automatically
At the ARTICLE LEVEL, we could track:
(http://tiny.cc/ALM1)
CiteULike Landing Page
Downloading the data
http://www.plosone.org/static/plos-alm.zip
Extending the data
Jason Priem
Extending the data
Jason Priem
“The Dirty War Index (DWI) method has been adapted for use in NATO military environments to monitor civilian, woman and child casualties. This version of the DWI is called a ‘Civilian Battle Damage Assessment Ratio’ (CBDAR). Since October 2009, the CBDAR methodology has been used by NATO forces in Southern Afghanistan in order to reduce the possibility of injuring Afghan civilians. The methodology has identified a number of military activities that historically lead to civilian mortality that has led to NATO changing procedures.”
www.plos.org
Next steps for article-level metrics
• More data sources– F1000, Mendeley, media coverage, tweets
• Impact that is hard to measure• Expert analysis and tools• Broader adoption
– By publishers– By tenure committees, funders etc
• Develop and adhere to standards
www.plos.org
Organizing content after publication
Part 2 – community curation
www.plos.org
The goals of PLoS Hubs
• Aggregate open access content – Wherever it is published
• Add value to content by connecting with data
• Build communities around content
Demonstrate the powerof open access
ITIS
Flickr
Wikipedia
NCBI
GBIF
www.plos.org
Next steps for PLoS Hubs
• Enhance and automate content enrichment• Develop Hubs community
– allow users to ‘follow’ a curator
• Extend literature sources beyond PMC– ideally to non-OA content
• Extend Hubs concept to other disciplines• Make Hubs easy to replicate
www.plos.org
Open AccessPublication
Research communication (online)
Publication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Reje
cts
Funding
www.plos.org
New models of research communication
Open accessPublication
Research
Submission
Peer reviewReje
cts
Funding
Added valuePost publication
www.plos.org
Some implications
• More rapid communication• Acceleration towards OA• Consolidation into fewer ‘journals’• Article-level research assessment• Post-publication content enhancement
Change is inevitable