Open Access: where you publish makes a difference Ginny Barbour Senior Editor PLo. S Medicine vbarbour@plos. org www. plosmedicine. org Göteborg, Dec 9, 2004 www. plos. org
Today’s circulation-based publishing model
What’s wrong with the current model of medical publishing? It is based on a print model of publishing So: Can only read articles if you or your library have a subscription to the journal Libraries are struggling to provide access to all required journals Even if patients could read them, many wouldn’t be able to understand them ie, access to knowledge is restricted both physically and intellectually www. plos. org
The internet provides the means to revolutionise publishing Cost-effective Global distribution Ease of searching www. plos. org
Why market forces don’t work Each paper is unique and every journal a monopoly www. plos. org
Papers published from Göteborg in Pub. Med 2004 224 papers 6 had full access to free text www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
Why does access matter? www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
Do you think patients and their families should have free access to the latest peer -reviewed medical research? over 100 000 doctors on www. doctors. net. uk 2329 responses Yes 67 % No 33 % www. plos. org
“In the Middle Ages, clergymen denied lay people access to bibles. As society develops, information about all sorts of issues becomes easier to obtain and medicine should be no exception. ” www. plos. org
Why market forces don’t work Researchers and physicians are cushioned from the real cost of publication Funding for research and research output often split between different organisations and funding agencies. www. plos. org
Subscription journals £ Gov Funders Institutions Researcher £ Publisher £ Pay-per-view £ Library £ Subscription Reader www. plos. org
Things are getting worse: the journals crisis Journal prices CPI/inflation Journals Purchased 1986 -2002 Source: Association of Research Libraries www. plos. org
What is open access? Free, immediate access online Unrestricted distribution and re-use Author retains rights to attribution and copyright Papers are deposited in a public online archive such as Pub. Med Central Bethesda Principles, April 2003 www. plos. org
Copyright: © 2004 Moorthy et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. www. plos. org
Benefits of open access Every paper has the maximum possible impact Authors reach largest possible audience Readers (scientists, physicians, teachers, public) have access to entire literature Allows text and data mining and analysis that is not possible unless full text and data are in one information space An effective publishing market forces keep prices in check www. plos. org
Subscription journals £ Gov Funders Institutions Researcher £ Publisher £ Pay-per-view £ Library £ Subscription Reader www. plos. org
Open access journals Researcher Publishing is the final step in a research project £ Gov Funders Institutions £ Publisher Public Digital Library Reader www. plos. org
Practicalities of open access Electronic submission Peer review - electronic Publishing paid for via one off publication charges on acceptance; $1500 at PLo. S Edited and placed on line Whether 1 or 1 million people access the article, there are no further charges www. plos. org
Myths about open-access “I can’t pay, so I can’t get published” Fee waiver, JISC, Institutional memberships “It’s vanity publishing” Peer review is the same or better than conventional journals “These journals are new and won’t have good enough impact factors” ISI believes that OA journals are at least comparable to subscription ones; the increased availability of articles ensures they are cited if appropriate “Funders won’t support me if I publish in an OA journal” The Wellcome does, other are thinking about OA; if you’re concerned, ask them directly! www. plos. org
What is the Public Library of Science? A nonprofit organization of scientists committed to making the world’s scientific and medical literature a public resource by driving a change in the publishing model to open-access publishing and generating tools for mining the scientific literature and for making it comprehensible to the non-specialist Nine editors; offices in San Francisco and Cambridge, UK www. plos. org
PLo. S Founding Board of Directors Harold Varmus PLo. S Co-founder and Chairman of the Board President and CEO of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center Patrick O. Brown PLo. S Co-founder and Board Member Howard Hughes Medical Institute & Stanford University School of Medicine Michael B. Eisen PLo. S Co-founder and Board Member Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory & University of California at Berkeley www. plos. org
www. plos. org
First journal - October, 2003 High volume traffic - more than a million unique IP addresses Increasing submissions Attracting high number of citations (ISI) www. plos. org
PLo. S Biology - one author’s tale “The bottom line is that what got me the job is the PLo. S (Biology) paper on the Plasmodium falciparum transcriptome! As you know, it is extremely difficult to get noticed among a slew of applicants for any position and certainly an academic one. Since this is actually the only major publication from my postdoctoral work, it is what carried me in the door. ” Manuel Llinas, Princeton University PLo. S Biology author www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
Barriers to open access Publishers - commercial success Scientific Societies - publishing supports them Authors - submitting to a new journal Funding agencies - don’t fund publishing www. plos. org
Changes over the past 12 months: funders Support from funding agencies (Wellcome Trust, HHMI, MPI, DFG, INSERM, CNRS) Outside analysis by Wellcome Trust: “The current market structure does not operate in the long-term interests of the research community. ” NIH is waking up: “The status quo is not an option. ” --Elias Zerhouni, August 2004 www. plos. org
Changes over the past 12 months: politicians UK Parliamentary enquiry: • The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee recommended that all UK higher education institutions establish electronic repositories where their published output can be stored and read, free of charge. • encouraged further experimentation with OA models EU Parliamentary enquiry under way Appropriations Committee within the US House of Representatives www. plos. org
Access to scientific information “It is not for either publishers or academics to decide who should, and who should not, be allowed to read scientific journal articles. We are encouraged by the growing interest in research findings shown by the public. It is in society’s interest that public understanding of science should increase. Increased public access to research findings should be encouraged by publishers, academics and Government alike” Ho. C S&T Committee Report, July 2004 www. plos. org
Changes over the past 12 months: publishers Open access publishers increase journals; BMC, PLo. S Some publishers experiment with open-access (PNAS, Development, NAR, Nature, Wiley) Elsevier allows personal and institutional archiving (not PDF of journal article, not deposition in public repository or wider dissemination ) Cell Press will make archive free www. plos. org
Changes over past 12 months: scientists Pioneering authors and other supporters vote with their feet and support open-access journals by submitting papers and serving as editors and reviewers Universities rebel against publishers’ squeeze (UCSF, Cornell) Open-access summits, sessions, seminars Remember: scientific publishing is a service industry; you need to push for the service you want www. plos. org
Authors care about increasing access “Faced with the option of submitting to an open-access or closed-access journal, we now wonder whether it is ethical for us to opt for closed access on the grounds of impact factor or preferred specialist audience. ” Costello and Osrin. The Lancet 2004; 364: 24 www. plos. org
What makes a journal what it is? Editorial process, production quality (what we can control) Content (what the scientific community can control) This is your opportunity to create the journals, and the publication model, that is best for your community www. plos. org
"We just can't throw away a business model developed by Thomas Edison in 1880 based on `Trust me, it will work. ' " Dr. Alan I. Leshner, chief executive AAAS www. plos. org
For if writing is placed on skins, it can last for a thousand years; but print, when it is a thing of paper, how long will it last? ' Johannes Trithemius 1492 (de laude scriptorum) the world has got along perfectly well for six thousand years without printing, and has no need to change now. Filippo di Strata (Dominican Friar late 15 th C) The internet is a revolutionary technology but can be hard to predict There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home. Ken Olson, 1977 President, chairman and founder of Digital Equipment Corp. 640 K ought to be enough for anybody. Bill Gates, 1981 www. plos. org
"Surely the combination of uncertainty and hope associated with this unproved model is vastly superior to the certainty and hopelessness that surrounds the current and failed commercial one, " Daniel Greenstein, University of California Librarian www. plos. org
Each author's choice of where to publish adds another brick to a complex publishing structure. Your choice may have a dramatic effect on how accessible, or inaccessible, your research is. Your decision can limit or facilitate others' digital access to significant research. The stakes are high for all. Stanford University Lane Medical Library www. plos. org
There are lots of inequalities in science, medicine and health care. Access to the latest peer-reviewed research results doesn’t have to be one of them. www. plos. org
www. plos. org
www. plos. org
The NIH debate hots up “NIH intends to request that its grantees and supported Principal Investigators provide the NIH with electronic copies of all final version manuscripts upon acceptance for publication if the research was supported in whole or in part by NIH funding. Six months after an NIH supported research study’s publication—or sooner if the publisher agrees—the manuscript will be made available freely to the public through PMC. If the publisher requests, the author’s final version of the publication will be replaced in the PMC archive by the final publisher’s copy with an appropriate link to the publisher’s electronic database. ” NIH Press release Sep 2004 The APA has attacked the NIH's core argument: that taxpayers should have access to taxpayer-funded research. The Alliance for Taxpayer Access (ATA) comprised of libraries and patient and health policy advocates support the plan 25 Nobel Prize winners have signed a letter to Congress supporting the plan. www. plos. org
U. S. House Appropriations Committee adopted a set of recommendations that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) put a condition on its research grants so that articles based on NIH-funded research would be deposited in Pub. Med Central (PMC), the NIH's openaccess digital library. In most cases, the articles would not become OA through PMC until six months after publication in a journal. But if NIH paid any part of their publication costs, they would become OA immediately. www. plos. org
Medical Publishing (or dirty little secrets) Who are the authors? − Physicians and Scientists Who reviews the work? − Physicians and Scientists Who has to pay to read the work? − Everyone, including…the authors and reviewers Who benefits? Er… www. plos. org
STM publishing is BIG business $ 9 billion/year 6, 000 journal titles 740 articles per day (270, 000/year) Publishers Commercial: Elsevier, Springer, Wiley, Blackwell University Presses: OUP, CUP www. plos. org Societies
Скачать презентацию Open Access where you publish makes a difference
4b6470a8a16118762433b2d115a8da6a.ppt