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

B7cccea0f2a6ef54318ec7ce197a438f?s=47 Hilda Bastian
September 22, 2016

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

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

B7cccea0f2a6ef54318ec7ce197a438f?s=128

Hilda Bastian

September 22, 2016
Tweet

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  
  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).    
  3. —  Lead  editor,  PubMed  Commons  (an   open  post-­‐publica)on  commen)ng

      plaKorm)   —  Academic  editor,  PLOS  Medicine   —  PLOS  One  Human  Ethics  Advisory  Group  
  4. None
  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)  
  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)  
  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/  
  8. None
  9. None
  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
  11. Fear  of   retribu0on   Lack  of   confidence  

    Time   Mo0va0on  
  12. PubMed  Commons:  PMID  27253448   Gene for multiple sclerosis? …

      …   …   PMID  25168465  
  13. None
  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.  
  15. —  Authors  of  publica)ons  in  PubMed   only   — 

    No  anonymous  accounts  &  no   pseudonyms   —  Post-­‐comment  modera)on  only   —  Crea)ve  Commons  license  
  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.  
  17. None
  18. None
  19. Thanks!