eLife presentation at Max Planck Martinsreid - June 27 2013

eLife presentation at Max Planck Martinsreid - June 27 2013

Fccb9ef81d69152b6096ec047428ac2e?s=128

Ian Mulvany

July 02, 2013
Tweet

Transcript

  1. Max Planck - Martinsried, June 27, 2013 Challenging conventions in

    research communication Ian Mulvany
  2. v1 2 Jun 11 Jul 11 Nov 11 Jun 12

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

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

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

    Oct 12 Dec 12 Jan 13 Announcement EIC Editorial Board Jun 13
  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
  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
  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
  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
  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
  11. World-class backing Editorially, eLife is entirely independent of the funders

  12. 4

  13. Editors •Editor-in- Chief •2 Deputy eds •17 Senior eds •Board

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

    of reviewing eds ~180
  15. 6

  16. 6 Not Author Focussed

  17. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process

  18. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  19. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  20. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  21. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  22. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  23. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  24. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  25. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  26. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  27. 6 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  28. 7 Not Author Focussed Painful Process Distorted Assessment

  29. Serve Science 7

  30. Serve Science 7

  31. Open Access 8

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

  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
  37. v1 14 Media policy 2 Simplifying Submission

  38. v1 Media Policy - Authors: openly discuss and share your

    work whenever you have the chance - eLife: share openly, promote, foster understanding
  39. v1 No Inglefinger

  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%
  41. v1 18 Media policy 2 Correcting Corrections

  42. v1 19

  43. v1 No required style

  44. v1

  45. v1

  46. v1 23 Media policy 2 Rapid Publication

  47. v1 24

  48. v1 25 Media policy 2 Rethinking Review

  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
  50. v1 Single set of instructions – focused revision Limit rounds

    of revision Reduced times from submission to acceptance No “3rd” reviewer problem
  51. v1 28 Media policy 2 Articulate Articles

  52. Making supplementary files usable

  53. Making supplementary files usable

  54. Making supplementary files usable

  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
  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
  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
  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
  59. v1 31

  60. None
  61. None
  62. None
  63. None
  64. None
  65. None
  66. None
  67. None
  68. v1 38 Architecture of Attention

  69. v1 39

  70. v1 40 Strategy Peer review Traditional Venues

  71. v1 41 Peer review Traditional Venues

  72. v1 41 Peer review Traditional Venues

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

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

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

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

    Venues
  77. v1 42 Media policy 2 Cultivating Careers

  78. v1 Media policy 2 Open Reviews

  79. v1 44

  80. v1 44

  81. v1 45

  82. v1 45

  83. v1 46 94 %

  84. v1 Media policy 2 Letter of recommendation

  85. Research assessment

  86. Research assessment Institutions Researchers (authors and readers) Publishers Funders Policy

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

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

    DORA
  91. 53 lens.elifesciences.org

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  104. eLife FAQ 59 FAQ

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

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

    funder?
  108. eLife FAQ 63 YES!

  109. eLife FAQ 64 For the funders, will publishing with eLife

    count as a high quality publication?
  110. eLife FAQ 65 YES!

  111. eLife FAQ 66 When we introduce APCs will they be

    the same for all researchers?
  112. eLife FAQ 67 YES!

  113. eLife FAQ 68 Can I publish for free for the

    next year?
  114. eLife FAQ 69 YES!

  115. eLife FAQ 70 Will publishing in eLife satisfy the RCUK

    OA Policy?
  116. eLife FAQ 71 YES!

  117. eLife FAQ 72 Should you publish in eLife?

  118. eLife FAQ 73 Well, that’s up to you to decide,

    but you might like to know ....
  119. None
  120. None
  121. v1

  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