davis open access talk

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

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


• 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




“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.”




• 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


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?

davis open access talk

Education