eLife presentation at Max Planck Martinsreid - June 27 2013

Transcript

1. Max Planck - Martinsried, June 27, 2013
   Challenging
   conventions in
   research
   communication
   Ian Mulvany
   

   View Slide

2. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Jun 13
   

   View Slide

3. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

4. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

5. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Editorial Board
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

6. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Editorial Board
   1st Submission
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

7. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Editorial Board
   1st Submission
   1st Publication
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

8. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Editorial Board
   1st Submission
   1st Publication
   Journal Platform
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

9. v1
   2
   Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
   Announcement
   EIC
   Editorial Board
   1st Submission
   1st Publication
   Journal Platform
   60 Publications
   Jun 13
   

   View Slide

10. v1
    2
    Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12 Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13
    Announcement
    EIC
    Editorial Board
    1st Submission
    1st Publication
    Journal Platform
    60 Publications
    Jun 13
    104 RA
    170 Pubs
    

    View Slide

11. World-class backing
    Editorially, eLife is entirely independent of the
    funders
    

    View Slide

12. View Slide

13. Editors
    •Editor-in-
    Chief
    •2 Deputy eds
    •17 Senior eds
    •Board of
    reviewing eds
    ~180
    

    View Slide

14. Editors
    •Editor-in-
    Chief
    •2 Deputy eds
    •17 Senior eds
    •Board of
    reviewing eds
    ~180
    

    View Slide

15. View Slide

16. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    

    View Slide

17. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    

    View Slide

18. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

19. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

20. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

21. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

22. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

23. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

24. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

25. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

26. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

27. 6
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

28. 7
    Not Author
    Focussed
    Painful
    Process
    Distorted
    Assessment
    

    View Slide

29. Serve
    Science
    7
    

    View Slide

30. Serve
    Science
    7
    

    View Slide

31. Open Access
    8
    

    View Slide

32. Motivation 1 – drive OA
    OA journals with APC
    OA journals no APC
    Hybrid subscription journals
    Laakso and Björk BMC Medicine 2012 10:124 doi:
    10.1186/1741-7015-10-124
    

    View Slide

33. 10
    UK – part 1
    • Support at the highest levels of
    government
    • “The Government believes that
    published research material
    which has been publicly financed
    should be publicly accessible –
    and that principle goes well
    beyond the academic
    community”
    • David Willetts, Minister of State,
    Universities and Science
    

    View Slide

34. 11
    UK – part 2
    • Finch – strong support for OA
    publishing, supported by
    publication fees
    • Wellcome – strengthened policy,
    emphasizing most liberal license
    (CC-BY) plus sanctions for non-
    compliance
    • Research Councils UK –
    strengthened policy, with support
    for payment of publication fees
    

    View Slide

35. eLife is on the more open side
    12
    CC-BY
    

    View Slide

36. v1
    13
    ... there's plenty still broken in the world, if you
    know how to see it.
    a tedious,
    unpleasant task
    Schlep:
    “Schlep Blindness”
    - Paul Graham
    

    View Slide

37. v1
    14
    Media policy 2
    Simplifying
    Submission
    

    View Slide

38. v1
    Media Policy
    - Authors: openly discuss and
    share your work whenever you
    have the chance
    - eLife: share openly, promote,
    foster understanding
    

    View Slide

39. v1
    No
    Inglefinger
    

    View Slide

40. v1
    By the end of October, we will have
    covered 122 studies from journals for
    our consumer service. Of those, 45
    were embargoed — but we didn’t hit
    the embargo on 12 of them, because
    we had better things to do, like cover
    more interesting studies that weren’t
    embargoed.
    - Ivan Oransky
    73%
    

    View Slide

41. v1
    18
    Media policy 2
    Correcting
    Corrections
    

    View Slide

42. v1
    19
    

    View Slide

43. v1
    No
    required style
    

    View Slide

44. v1
    

    View Slide

45. v1
    

    View Slide

46. v1
    23
    Media policy 2
    Rapid
    Publication
    

    View Slide

47. v1
    24
    

    View Slide

48. v1
    25
    Media policy 2
    Rethinking
    Review
    

    View Slide

49. v1
    26
    Media policy 2
    20
    Cover letter and
    single PDF
    Swift triage
    process by
    Senior Editors
    Full submission
    BRE member
    plus external
    reviewer(s)
    Decision after
    peer review
    Revision
    assessed by BRE
    member
    Consultation
    Single decision letter
    

    View Slide

50. v1
    Single set of instructions – focused
    revision
    Limit rounds of revision
    Reduced times from submission
    to acceptance
    No “3rd” reviewer problem
    

    View Slide

51. v1
    28
    Media policy 2
    Articulate
    Articles
    

    View Slide

52. Making supplementary files usable
    

    View Slide

53. Making supplementary files usable
    

    View Slide

54. Making supplementary files usable
    

    View Slide

55. • From narrative to primary
    data sources
    • From summary data to
    primary/source data
    • From main figures to
    secondary figures
    • All parts searchable,
    discoverable, citable
    Connecting narrative with data
    

    View Slide

56. • From narrative to primary
    data sources
    • From summary data to
    primary/source data
    • From main figures to
    secondary figures
    • All parts searchable,
    discoverable, citable
    Connecting narrative with data
    

    View Slide

57. • From narrative to primary
    data sources
    • From summary data to
    primary/source data
    • From main figures to
    secondary figures
    • All parts searchable,
    discoverable, citable
    Connecting narrative with data
    

    View Slide

58. • From narrative to primary
    data sources
    • From summary data to
    primary/source data
    • From main figures to
    secondary figures
    • All parts searchable,
    discoverable, citable
    Connecting narrative with data
    

    View Slide

59. v1
    31
    

    View Slide

60. View Slide

61. View Slide

62. View Slide

63. View Slide

64. View Slide

65. View Slide

66. View Slide

67. View Slide

68. v1
    38
    Architecture
    of Attention
    

    View Slide

69. v1
    39
    

    View Slide

70. v1
    40
    Strategy
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

71. v1
    41
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

72. v1
    41
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

73. v1
    41
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    API
    Non-Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

74. v1
    41
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    API
    Non-Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

75. v1
    41
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    API
    Non-Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

76. v1
    41
    All Curated
    Peer review
    Traditional Venues
    API
    Non-Traditional Venues
    

    View Slide

77. v1
    42
    Media policy 2
    Cultivating
    Careers
    

    View Slide

78. v1
    Media policy 2
    Open
    Reviews
    

    View Slide

79. v1
    44
    

    View Slide

80. v1
    44
    

    View Slide

81. v1
    45
    

    View Slide

82. v1
    45
    

    View Slide

83. v1
    46
    94 %
    

    View Slide

84. v1
    Media policy 2
    Letter of
    recommendation
    
    
    

    View Slide

85. Research
    assessment
    

    View Slide

86. Research
    assessment
    Institutions
    Researchers
    (authors and
    readers)
    Publishers
    Funders
    Policy makers
    The public
    Librarians
    

    View Slide

87. The impact
    factor is…
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2w2/191545978/sizes/z/in/
    photostream/
    

    View Slide

88. • Started with a group of editors who met at ASCB
    • Diverse group
    – Commercial and non-profit
    – Range of business models (OA and subscription)
    • Recognise the deficiencies in current system
    • Identify opportunities to do better
    

    View Slide

89. • General recommendations
    – Move away from impact factors
    – Assess outputs on their own merits
    – Exploit new tools and approaches
    • And specific recommendations for publishers, funders,
    institutions, metrics suppliers, and researchers
    • >6000 signatories
    

    View Slide

90. Step 1 – sign the declaration!
    http://am.ascb.org/dora/
    Google San Francisco DORA
    

    View Slide

91. 53
    lens.elifesciences.org
    

    View Slide

92. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

93. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

94. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

95. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

96. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

97. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

98. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

99. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
    

    View Slide

100. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
     

     View Slide

101. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
     

     View Slide

102. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
     

     View Slide

103. eLife Lens http://elifesciences.github.io/articl
     

     View Slide

104. eLife FAQ
     59
     FAQ
     

     View Slide

105. eLife FAQ
     60
     What’s the scope of eLife?
     

     View Slide

106. 61
     eLife – scope
     • BROAD
     From basic and theoretical work to
     translational, applied and clinical research.
     • SELECTIVE
     Highly influential work that advances understanding,
     opens new doors or has real-world impacts.
     

     View Slide

107. eLife FAQ
     62
     Are all submissions treated
     equally, irrespective of
     funder?
     

     View Slide

108. eLife FAQ
     63
     YES!
     

     View Slide

109. eLife FAQ
     64
     For the funders, will
     publishing with eLife count
     as a high quality
     publication?
     

     View Slide

110. eLife FAQ
     65
     YES!
     

     View Slide

111. eLife FAQ
     66
     When we introduce APCs will
     they be the same for all
     researchers?
     

     View Slide

112. eLife FAQ
     67
     YES!
     

     View Slide

113. eLife FAQ
     68
     Can I publish for free for the
     next year?
     

     View Slide

114. eLife FAQ
     69
     YES!
     

     View Slide

115. eLife FAQ
     70
     Will publishing in eLife satisfy
     the RCUK OA Policy?
     

     View Slide

116. eLife FAQ
     71
     YES!
     

     View Slide

117. eLife FAQ
     72
     Should you publish in eLife?
     

     View Slide

118. eLife FAQ
     73
     Well, that’s up to you to
     decide, but you might like
     to know ....
     

     View Slide

119. View Slide

120. View Slide

121. v1
     

     View Slide

122. 76
     Conclusion
     • Wellcome Trust, HHMI, MPS and the Editors are
     committed to scientific excellence
     • Publication alongside other outstanding science
     • Fair and swift editorial process
     • Enhancements:
     – plain language summaries
     – expert commentaries
     – great presentation - enhances your story
     • Letters of recommendation
     • It’s exciting
     

     View Slide