Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Thomas IngrahamPublishing Editor, F1000Research
Emerging themes in Agricultural Research Publishing
OVERVIEW
• Increased openness
• Reduced delays
• Changes in research evaluation
STATUS QUO
Often can only get this (unless you pay $$$):
Presentations Articles Posters
ReviewsDataCode
INCREASING OPENNESS
OPENACCESS
• Budapest OA initiative (2001)
• 232,400 OA (2011): 17%*• Funder pressure: Gates
• Benefits• Much greater reach• Citation advantage
• Green OA: free / embargoes
• Gold: Article Processing Charges
• Research4life: HINARI/AGORA
• The Winnower
* Laakso & Bjork. BMC Medicine. 10.1186/1741-7015-10-124
McKiernan et al. elife. doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800
• Status quo: no or unusable data
• Benefits• Citation advantage• Reanalysis• Reuse
• Journal policies: SHERPA/ROMEO
• Funder mandates: Gates, CGIAR, DfID, NERC, Wellcome Trust
• Data papers: method + data only
• Storing and finding data: repositories and indexers
OPENDATA
+9-30%
Piowar & Vision. PeerJ. 10.7717/peerj.175
OPENPEERREVIEW
• Status quo: Single blind review
• Double blind: Journal of Agricultural Science
• Open decision letters: elife
• Signed: Frontiers
• Open reports: Copernicus
• Both: F1000Research
• Why OPR?• Context, strengths & limitations• Constructive (social pressure)• Proof of peer review (quality)• Recognition for peer review
MOREINFORMATIONNOWAVAILABLE
+9-30%
• Status quo: minimal information & focus on novelty -> irreproducibility & publication bias
• USDA SAC recommendations on reproducibility:
• Positive results over-represented -> publish negative
• Data dredging -> open data, code and better stats
• Under-specified details in methods
• Open code: Github/Zenodo
• Open projects with Open Science Framework
• Grey literature: posters and presentations
PUBLISHINGLAGTIMES:STATUSQUO
Journal 1 80 28
Rejection
Published
Journal 2
DecisionSubmitted
Editor / peer review
Editor / peer review
Rejection
Decision
Submitted
Journal 3
Submitted
• Often decision based on novelty or perceived impact
• Article remains inaccessible (and so useless) for a long time
• Takes longer to solve urgent global issues
PREPRINTS
• Benefits• Free!• Very quick: respond to emergencies
• Limitations• Not reviewed• Not edited• Not indexed• So doesn’t ‘count’ with evaluators
• Combined with journal• Overlay journals: Discrete analysis• Free, peer reviewed but no indexing
• Funder encouragement• Wellcome Trust, ERC, NIH, MRC, Dep.
Biotech Gov IndiaSource: Open Wheat Blast
PUBLICATIONBEFOREPEERREVIEW
Approved
Reservations
Not approved
• F1000Research, Atmospheric Chemistry & Physics, The Winnower
• Quick responses to global issues: Ebola/Zika
• See article history
REDUCING PUBLISHING TIMES
80 28
7 66
+ 101 days of being visible, shareable & citable
+ 35 days of knowing quality of research
Rejection
1 1
1 1
Days inaccessible
Days accessible
Journal 1
Published
Published 2 reviews
Journal 2
Final Decision
Key
Plant Biology, Ecology & Environmental Science
RESEARCHEVALUATION:THESTATUSQUO
How do you know if an article is good?
‘‘…what matters absolutely is the scientific content of a paper and…nothing will substitute for either knowing it or reading it’’ -Sydney Brenner
• Journal level metrics:• Journal Impact Factor: meant to be for librarians• CiteScore
JIF year 3 = # citations year 1 + # citations year 2# publications year1 + # publications year 2
• Issues:• Can’t infer article quality• Matthew effect• Overestimates impact of a given article Lariviere et al. biorxiv.
doi.org/10.1101/062109
ARTICLELEVELMETRICS
• Quantitative
• Measures of reach
• Views/downloads
• Altmetric
• Impactstory
• Qualitative
• Open peer review
• F1000 Recommendations
• Biosketch
INSTITUTIONSPROMOTINGOPENSCIENCE
• Recognize Open Science in tenure/promotion/hiring
• OA archive for promotion
• Funder OS publishing platforms• Work like F1000Research• More to come!
http://f1000research.com/channels/okad http://f1000research.com/subjects/399
OPENAGRICULTURALSCIENCEONF1000RESEARCH
