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

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