Transcript Document

Björn Brembs, Freie Universität Berlin
http://brembs.net
http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii
1665: One journal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)
24,000 scholarly journals
1.5 million publications/year
3% annual growth
1 million authors
10-15 million readers at >10,000
institutions
• 1.5 billion downloads/year
•
•
•
•
•
Source: Mabe MA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22
19th century publishing for a 21st
century scientific community
At least three different search tools to be
sure not to miss any relevant literature?
When we finally find the literature, we have
to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to
us?
We have to re-format our manuscripts every
time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to
another journal?
We have to pay ridiculous amounts of
money, just to find out who cited us, instead
of having that list directly on our papers?
We have to send hardcopies and CDs with
copies of the already submitted files by
express-mail to the publisher?
Every homepage has had an access counter
since 1993 but we don’t know how often our
paper has been downloaded?
Nothing happens when we click on the
reference after "we performed the
experiments as described previously"?
Nothing happens when we click on the
reference after "we performed the
experiments as described previously"?
First demonstration: 1968
Stanford Research Institute: NLS
WWW: 1989
Tim Berners-Lee: CERN
Who‘s to blame that our
publishing system is so lame?
We decide how and where to publish!
We are producers and consumers in
personal union!
We chose to outsource scientific
communication to publishers!
A public good in private hands
Rofecoxib=Vioxx (Merck)
“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of
[Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a
peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—
most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act
solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”
“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular
journal. “
The Scientist
“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining
were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive
conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “
Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office
published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of
pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper
disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”
Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of
[Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a
peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—
most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act
solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”
“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular
journal. “
The Scientist
“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining
were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive
conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “
Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office
published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of
pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper
disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”
Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of
[Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a
peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—
most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act
solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”
“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular
journal. “
The Scientist
“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining
were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive
conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “
Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office
published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of
pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper
disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”
Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of
[Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a
peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—
most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act
solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”
“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular
journal. “
The Scientist
“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining
were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive
conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “
Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian
“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office
published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of
pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper
disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”
Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
• Name from Dutch publisher (1580):
“House of Elzevir”
• 250,000 articles per year in 2000 journals
• 7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial
board members and 200,000 reviewers
are working for Elsevier
• Part of Reed Elsevier group
Average periodical profit margin: 5%
2003 U.S. Sales (in billions)
Thomson L & R
Reed Elsevier
Wolters Kluwer
Other
Total
$2.639
$1.764
$1.158
$1.250 (est)
$6.811
Thomson 38.75%
Reed Elsevier 25.90%
Wolters Kluwer 17%
Other 18.35%
250
200
Subscription prices
100
CPI/inflation
Journals purchased
50
0
-50
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
% Change
150
Modified from ARL
Chemistry
Physics
Astronomy
Engineering
Geology
Biology
Math & Computer Sci
Zoology
Botany
Health Sciences
Library Journal Periodical Price Survey, April 2006
$3,254
1,756
2,850
1,548
1,724
1,323
1,278
1,259
1,238
1,132
Ray English
MPG: 18 Mio €/y for literature. 95% to the
three main publishers.
• People produce your product for you
• They check it for quality
• They’re even kind enough to give you their
intellectual property (copyright!)
• You polish it up and distribute it
• And you charge those same people handsomely to
make their product available back to them
• They think they must have your product, even
though they created it, so you’re free to raise
prices
What a magnificent ship! What makes it go?
Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson
• Request increased
budgets
• Cut subscriptions
• Collective purchase of
electronic journals
• Rely on document
delivery or ILL
Ray English
Compared to now, was journal access 5 years ago…
60
40
20
0
lot worse
worse
same
better
much better
David Nicholas
• Substantial portion is
– funded by taxpayers
– supported publicly
– created in non-profit sector
• Journal literature is freely given away by
authors
• But journal publishing is largely under
corporate control
• A public good in private hands
Ray English
Peter Suber
“Open-access (OA) literature is
digital, online, free of charge, and
free of most copyright and licensing
restrictions.”
• First route: authors deposit copy of pre-print or post-print in
an “institutional repository” or other open web-site
– About 1400 open repositories already established world-wide
• Second route: authors publish in peer-reviewed journals
funded by publication charges rather than by library
subscriptions
– Over 4227 peer-reviewed open access journals now listed in the Lund
Directory of Open Access Journals www.doaj.org
ROAR
DOAJ
RoMEO
Traditional System
Subscriber Pays
Toll Access
Author
Money
Flow
Subscriptions
Site Licenses
Pay-per-view
Reprints
Page
Charges
Color Fees
Publisher
Information
Flow
Agent
Library
Reader
Model adapted From Public Library of Science www.plos.org
Open Access System
Author-Pays
Free Access
Money Flow
one time
publication charge
Sponsor
Author
Information
Flow
Publisher
Library/Search Engine
Reader
Model adapted From Public Library of Science www.plos.org
Yesterday
Today
Paper
Bits and bytes
Brick and mortar libraries
Cyberspace
Institute library address
Uniform resource identifiers (URIs)
High cost of printing and distribution
Publishing costs fallen by orders of
magnitude
Only comprehensible to a few humans
Read and indexed by machines (e.g.,
Googlebot)
Restricted access to a few subscribers
Increasingly public
www.scopus.com
www.pubmed.gov
http://ukpmc.ac.uk
isiknowledge.com
scholar.google.com
Duncan Hull
• Isolation
– each discipline has its own data silo
• Impersonal and unsociable
– “who the hell are you”?
– Where are “my” papers? (authored by me, or of interest to me)
– What are my friends and colleagues reading?
– What are the experts reading? What is popular this week / month /
year ?
• “Cold”: Identity of publications and authors is inadequate
• Obsolete models of publication, not everything fits publication-sized holes
– Micro-attribution
– Mega-attribution
– Digital contributions (databases, software, wikis/blogs?)
Duncan Hull
How can I find anything?
Identity Crisis
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
http://pubmed.gov/18974831
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974831
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?accid=pmcA2568856
http://ukpmc.ac.uk/picrender.cgi?artid=1687256&blobtype=pdf
http://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204
http://www.dbkgroup.org/Papers/hull_defrost_ploscb08.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204
•
One paper, many URIs. Disambiguation algorithms rely on getting metadata for each
– Big problem for libraries is these redundant duplicates
•
Matching can be done by Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and PubMed ID (PMID);
– these are frequently absent < 5% (Kevin Emamy, citeUlike)
Duncan Hull
•
•
•
•
•
Difficult with fragmented information silos
Several initiatives
Crossref: DOI, ContributorID
PubMed: PMID
…
• Machine-readable meaning
• Technically non-trivial
• Promising progress
Tim Berners-Lee
http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/Overview.html
URI Uniform Resource Identifier, like:
http://id.animals.edu/mammal/dog
+ XML Customized tags, like:
<dog>Nena</dog>
+ RDF Relations, in triples, like:
(Nena) (is_dog_of) (Kimiko/Stefan)
+ Ontologies Hierarchies of concepts, like
mammal -> canine -> Cotton de Tulear -> Nena
+ Inference rules Like:
If (person) (owns) (dog), then (person) (cares_for) (dog)
= Semantic Web!
Or filter failure?
Information (Overload) Crisis
• Publish or Perish: number of
publications
• Where are you published?
– ~24,000 scholarly journals (~6,000 with IF)
– ~1.5 million publications/year
– 60-300 applicants per tenure-track position
• Reading enough publications is
impossible!
• Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor
• ScImago JournalRank
• Eigenfactor
Publikationstätigkeit
(vollständige Publikationsliste, darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in,
Seniorautor/in, Impact-Punkte insgesamt und in den letzten 5 Jahren,
darunter jeweils gesondert ausgewiesen als Erst- und Seniorautor/in,
persönlicher Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index nach Web of
Science) über alle Arbeiten)
Publications:
Complete list of publications, including original research papers as first
author, senior author, impact points total and in the last 5 years, with
marked first and last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index
(SCI, h-Index according to web of science) for all publications.
There is no replacement for
reading papers!
• Who knows what the IF is?
• Who uses the IF to pick a journal
(rate a candidate, etc.)?
• Who knows how the IF is calculated
and from what data?
• 50,000 employees
• US$600 million profit/quarter
• Thomson family owns 53%
• €30,000-130,000/year subscription rates
Introduced in 1960’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
citations
2008
articles
2006 and 2007
IF=5
Articles published in 06/07
were cited an average of 5 times in 08.
Journal X IF 2008=
All citations from Thomsons Reuters journals in 2008 to papers in journal X
Number of citable articles published in journal X in 2006/7
• Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
• PLoS Medicine, IF 2-11 (8.4)
(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)
• Current Biology IF from 7 to 11 in
2003
– Bought by Cell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…
• Rockefeller University Press bought their
data from Thomson Reuters
• Up to 19% deviation from published records
• Second dataset still not correct
Rossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Show
me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol.
179, No. 6, 1091-1092
http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
• Left-skewed distributions
• Weak correlation of individual article citation
rate with journal IF
Seglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
“Nearly all the grandest discoveries
of science have been but the rewards
of accurate measurement”
•
•
•
•
•
Expensive
Why Thomson?
IF from what year?
No correlation
Why not actual citations?
Where you publish is more
important to us than what you
publish!
refworks.com
zotero.org
mendeley.com
hubmed.org
2collab.com
connotea.org
citeulike.org
Re-couple metadata that has be de-coupled from data
www.mekentosj.com
“iTunes for PDF files”
Your article:
• Received X citations (de-duped from Google
Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science)
• It was viewed X times, placing it in the top Y% of
all articles in this journal/community
• It received X Comments
• It was bookmarked X times in Social Bookmarking
sites
• Experts in your community rated it as X, Y, Z
• It was discussed on X ‘respected’ blogs
• It appeared in X, Y, Z International News media
Peter Binfield
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Launched in December 2006
1,231 articles published in 2007
2,722 articles published in 2008
Predicted >4300 articles in 2009
In 2010 1% of all PubMed articles
Largest journal in the world
Now >800 Academic editors
Already >30,000 authors
No subjective selection of articles (‘novelty’,
‘impact’ etc.)
"Not everything that can be counted
counts, and not everything that
counts can be counted."
• Won‘t go away
• Should always be a last resort
• They are much too valuable to be satisfied
with the current pitiful state of affairs
• Let‘s make them as good as we possibly can!
• No more publishers – libraries archive everything according
to a world-wide standard
• Single semantic, decentralized database of literature and
data
• Personalized filtering
• Peer-review administrated by an independent body
• Link typology for text/text, data/data and text/data links
(„citations“)
• Semantic Text/Datamining
• All the metrics you (don‘t) want (but need)
• Tagging, bookmarking, etc.
• Unique contributor IDs with attribution/reputation system
(teaching, reviewing, curating, blogging, etc.)
• Technically feasible today (almost)
http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii