Openness and Consequences: Directions in Pre- and Post-Publication Peer Review

Presentation at #OASPA8, the 8th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing.

Transcript

1. Hilda  Bas)an  
   Na)onal  Center  for  Biotechnology  
   Informa)on  (NCBI)  
   8th  Conference  on  Open  Access  
   Scholarly  Publishing  (COASP  2016)  
   Arlington,  Virginia  
   22  September  2016  
   

   View Slide

2. This  talk  and  these  slides  represent  
   the  work  and  opinions  of  the  
   presenter,  and  do  not  cons4tute  
   official  posi4ons  of  the  Na4onal  
   Center  for  Biotechnology  Informa4on  
   (NCBI),  the  US  Na4onal  Library  of  
   Medicine  (NLM),  the  Na4onal  
   Ins4tutes  of  Health  (NIH)  or  the  US  
   Department  of  Health  and  Human  
   Services  (HHS).  
    
   

   View Slide

3. —  Lead  editor,  PubMed  Commons  (an  
   open  post-­‐publica)on  commen)ng  
   plaKorm)  
   —  Academic  editor,  PLOS  Medicine  
   —  PLOS  One  Human  Ethics  Advisory  Group  
   

   View Slide

4. View Slide

5. 1850  
   Beaver  &  Rosen  (2005).  Scientometrics;  1(3).  hUp://
   www.akademiai.com/doi/abs/10.1007/BF02016308  
   1st  co-­‐authored  
   ar)cle  (1870)  
   1st  ar)cle  with  >1,000  
   authors  (2004)  
   INTERNET  
   Wikipedia  
   (2001)  
   40%  of  papers  
   have  co-­‐authors  
   (1940)  
   

   View Slide

6. 1850  
   INTERNET  
   arXiv  
   (1991)  
   Open  peer  
   review  
   (1996)  
   PubMed  
   Commons  
   (2013)  
   Open  Source  
   Ini)a)ve  
   (1998)  
   Budapest  OA  
   Declara)on  
   (2002)  
   Roentgen:  
   Rise  of  media  
   aUen)on  
   (1895)  
   

   View Slide

7. —  Very  few  studies  of  
   closed/open  
   journal  peer  review  
   —  Small,  if  any,  
   impact  
   —  Open  peer  review  
   may  be  more  
   careful,  may  deter  
   reviewers  
   Bas)an  (2015).  PLOS  Blogs.  hUp://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-­‐maybe/2015/05/13/weighing-­‐up-­‐anonymity-­‐
   and-­‐openness-­‐in-­‐publica)on-­‐peer-­‐review/  
   

   View Slide

8. View Slide

9. View Slide

10. Formal structured research
    including systematic reviews
    Discussion at conferences
    & around water coolers
    Letters to the editor
    Comments
    Journal clubs
    Blogs, Twitter, email
    lists, forums….
    Journal commentaries
    & critiquing articles
    Post-publication
    peer reviews
    Embedded in
    subsequent articles
    Formal
    investigation &
    retraction
    

    View Slide

11. Fear  of  
    retribu0on  
    Lack  of  
    confidence  
    Time  
    Mo0va0on  
    

    View Slide

12. PubMed  Commons:  PMID  27253448  
    Gene for multiple sclerosis?
    …  
    …  
    …  
    PMID  25168465  
    

    View Slide

13. View Slide

14. —  Author  engagement  
    —  Consequences  of  cri)ques  
    —  Consequences  for  authors  of  non-­‐response  to  important  
    ques)ons  &  cri)cism  
    —  More  accountability  and  consequences  for  editors,  
    reviewers,  and  journals:  Südhof  (2016).  Truth  in  science  publishing:  a  
    personal  perspec)ve.  PLOS  Biology  14(8):  e1002547.  
    

    View Slide

15. —  Authors  of  publica)ons  in  PubMed  
    only  
    —  No  anonymous  accounts  &  no  
    pseudonyms  
    —  Post-­‐comment  modera)on  only  
    —  Crea)ve  Commons  license  
    

    View Slide

16. —  Author  reply  rate:  6%  
    —  Women:  18%  
    —  Linking  to  data  or  code:  10%  
    Vaugh  &  Bas)an  (2016).  Post-­‐publica)on  ac)vity  on  PubMed  Commons.  AAAS  Mee)ng.  
    

    View Slide

17. View Slide

18. View Slide

19. Thanks!  
    

    View Slide