eLife presentation at Max Planck Martinsreid - June 27 2013

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
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
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
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 ....
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