BioMed Central PowerPoint presentation title goes here · Publication models and open access Liz Hoffman, Journal Development Manager, BioMed Central Diana Marshall, Publisher, BMC-series

Publication models and open access

Liz Hoffman, Journal Development Manager, BioMed Central

Diana Marshall, Publisher, BMC-series journals

19.05.2017

#BMCHSGweb

1

Webinar 3: Publication models and open access #BMCHSGweb

Updating footer To update the footer: • Click into the text box on the slide

master page and update the information

Checking updates • The text updates may not flow

through to all the slide layouts as some have been placed manually. Therefore you may need to check and manually update other slides

Housekeeping Rules

To keep the technical process simple, we will not be using webcams for this session;

Please keep your microphones “Muted” while listening to a presenter to avoid background noise during the session;

Please submit your questions and comments through the Questions Box at the bottom of the GoToWebinar control panel. You can submit questions at any point during the webinar and there will be two answer sessions;

Panelists/presenters will collect all questions submitted by you during the session;

In case you did not get answer on your question during the live session, panelists will get back to you later via email;

In case of technical problems, please write to [email protected];

For other support, please contact [email protected];

Please complete the post-webinar survey

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

2






Health Systems Global

HSG is a unique organization driven by a diverse, global membership of researchers, decision-makers and implementers who are dedicated to promoting health systems research and knowledge translation.

HSG now has over 1500 members from 96 countries.

http://healthsystemsglobal.org/

BioMed Central

For over 16 years, BioMed Central has been making scientific research freely accessible and discoverable through partnerships, innovation and collaboration with the scientific community. Dedicated to open research, we now publish over 290 quality peer-reviewed journals including BMC Health Services Research, which is affiliated with Health Systems Global.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/





3






Updating image

To update the background image, click on the picture placeholder icon

1. Windows Explorer or Finder will open

2. Find your required image and click ‘Insert’

3. When cover image inserted, right-click in the grey area directly below this text box and select ‘Reset slide’

NOTE:

If an image is already in place and you want to change it:

1. Select the image, and hit your delete key

2. Follow steps 1-4 above

Diana Marshall

Publisher, BMC-series journals

Liz Hoffman

Journal Development Manager for the health services research journals at BioMed Central.

Hilary Logan

Editor for BMC Health Services Research and BMC Nursing

4






Overview

1 Publishing models and what authors need to know

2 Open science and open data

3 Models of peer review

4 Innovations and looking ahead

#BMCHSGweb

5

1.0

Publishing models and what authors need to know

6






In many cases may not affect the decision on where you publish…

…but the model of the journal could impact:

• Whether you have to pay costs for publication and how much

• The future accessibility of your work

• How your work can be re-used (including by you)

Publishing models: why should authors care?

7






Subscription

• Readers pay to access content

• Authors may still pay some publication charges

• Rights in the article, or licences, transferred from the researcher to the publisher

• Re-use limited by copyright and permissions

Open access (OA)

• Content is freely available to readers

• Authors pay an article processing charge for publication

• Author retains rights, publisher is licenced to publish the work

• Work is available for re-use for any purpose (depending on licence)

• Often called ‘gold’ open access

Hybrid

• Journal which publishes primarily subscription content offers an open access option

• Author may choose to pay an article processing charge in order for the work to be open access

Three broad journal models

8






9






Institutions and funding agencies: “We already expect that our faculty and grantees share their ideas and discoveries through publication. This mission is only half-complete if the work is not made as widely available and as useful to society as possible.”

Libraries and publishers: “…works reporting the results of current scientific research should be as openly accessible and freely useable as possible.”

Scientists and scientific societies: “Electronic publication of research results offers the opportunity and the obligation to share results, ideas and discoveries freely with the scientific community and the public.”

Bethesda statement 2003

10






The different types of open access

• Self-archiving of content by the author, usually in a repository or pre-print – may be subject to embargoes

Green

• Open access provided at the journal as the model of publication – author pays an article processing charge

Gold

• Open access provided at the journal – article is both free to read and free to publish

Diamond

11






Creative Commons licenses

Attribution CC BY Anyone can distribute, remix and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. Attribution-ShareAlike CC BY-SA Anyone can remix, and build upon your work even for commercial purposes, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms.

Attribution-NoDerivs CC BY-ND This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you. Attribution-NonCommercial CC BY-NC This license lets others remix and build upon your work non-commercially.

12






13






Who pays?

35% 46%

24%

19%

8%

15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Agriculture andForestry

Business andEconomics

Chemistry, EarthSciences, Physics,and Astronomy

Education, SocialSciences, Law, and

Political Science

Health Sciences,Biology, and Life

Sciences

Technology,Engineering,

Mathematic andStatistics,

Computer Science

Other

Fee waived

Personal funds

Discretionary funds(institutional)

Institutional funding (OApolicy)

National funding (OA policy)

Grant or contract

Solomon, D. J. and Björk, B.-C. (2012),

Publication fees in open access

publishing:

Sources of funding and factors

influencing choice of journal.

J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci., 63: 98–107.

doi: 10.1002/asi.21660

14






Public access policies: funders

15






Marks of quality for journals:

• Named Editors and Editorial Board Members

• Clear ownership

• Thorough peer-review policies

• Inclusion in the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)

• Members of Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)

• More information also available at Think Check Submit

Who can you trust?

https://doaj.org/

https://publicationethics.org/

https://oaspa.org/

http://thinkchecksubmit.org/

16






17






Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association

• Promotes best practices for maintaining and disseminating OA scholarly communications, and ethical standards of publishing

• Members meet strict criteria relating to integrity and commitment to open access publishing

• Members must also be members of COPE

• http://oaspa.org/

http://oaspa.org/

http://oaspa.org/

18

2.0

Open science and open data

19






What is open science?

By Andreas E. Neuhold - Own work, CC BY 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33542838

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33542838

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=33542838

20






What does open science look like in practice?

IDEAS – HYPOTHESES – EXPERIMENTS – DATA ANALYSIS - COMPREHENSION - DISSEMINATION

Authoring

Tools Lab

Notebooks

Software Analysis

Tools

Visualization

Scholarly

Communication

Diagram loosely based on “A few overarching thoughts on digital publishing and how you can participate” by P Bourne http://www.slideshare.net/pebourne/ismb2013

http://www.slideshare.net/pebourne/ismb2013

http://www.slideshare.net/pebourne/ismb2013

21






• Enable reproducibility

• Accelerate scientific progress

• Give researchers more credit

• Get more citations

…but remember to be careful with any individual patient data

Why share data?

Roche DG, Lanfear R, Binning SA, Haff TM, Schwanz LE, et al. (2014) Troubleshooting Public Data Archiving: Suggestions to Increase Participation. PLoS Biol 12(1): e1001779. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001779

https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001779

22






Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

Sharing gets you cited

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0000308

23






http://www.springernature.com/gp/group/data-policy/repositories#c10106444

Not sure how to share data?

http://www.springernature.com/gp/group/data-policy/repositories




24






• Get seen

• Meet funder requirements

• Increase citations to your work1

• Spurs collaboration, a common aspect of most high-impact research2

• Show your research is robust3

• Accelerate speed of research

• Speed up peer review time of your manuscript

• Public benefits

Why be open?

1. Piwowar HA, Day RS, Fridsma DB (2007) Sharing Detailed Research Data Is Associated with Increased Citation Rate. PLoS ONE 2(3): e308. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000308 2. Figg, W. D., Dunn, L., Liewehr, D. J., Steinberg, S. M., Thurman, P. W., Barrett, J. C. and Birkinshaw, J. (2006), Scientific Collaboration Results in Higher Citation Rates of Published Articles. Pharmacotherapy, 26: 759–767. doi: 10.1592/phco.26.6.759; Frenken, K., Ponds, R. and Van Oort, F. (2010), The citation impact of research collaboration in science-based industries: A spatial-institutional analysis. Papers in Regional Science, 89: 351–271. doi: 10.1111/j.1435-5957.2010.00309.x 3. Wicherts JM, Bakker M, Molenaar D (2011) Willingness to Share Research Data Is Related to the Strength of the Evidence and the Quality of Reporting of Statistical Results. PLoS ONE 6(11): e26828. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0026828

25

Questions so far…

26

3.0

Models of peer review

27






Models of peer review

• Authors do not know who reviewers are

• Readers do not know who reviewed the paper

• Reviewers know who the authors are

• Same as single-blind AND reviewers do not know the authors are

• Authors know who reviewers are

• Readers know who reviewed the paper

• Reviewers know who the authors are

28






• Anonymity of authors as well as reviewers could level field for women and minorities in science (Daniel Cressey, Nature, 2014 doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15564)

• Removes the opportunity for subconscious bias

• Poll in our last webinar over 60% of participants preferred double-blind peer review over single-blind or open

… but can reviewers still guess who the authors are?

Benefits of double blind peer review

http://www.nature.com/news/journals-weigh-up-double-blind-peer-review-1.15564

29






Open peer review

30






Open peer review at BioMed Central

31






Open peer review provides credit for reviewers

32






• Asking reviewers to consent to the author being informed of their identity had no effect on quality of review or their recommendation (van Rooyen et al. 1999, BMJ 1999;318:23–7)

• Telling reviewers their signed report may be available online did not affect review quality (van Rooyen et al. 2010, BMJ 2010;341:c5729)

Increases transparency and accountability

• Reviewers get credit

• Reviewers more accountable – their name is on the report

• Editors also more accountable – decisions not behind closed doors

• Can be used to train new peer reviewers

Open peer review model reports provide

• Better comments on study design

• Improved supplying of information to substantiate comment

• More constructive reports (Kowalczuk et al. 2015, BMJ Open 2015; 5:e008707)

Benefits of open peer review

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=9872878




http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=21081600



10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707

10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707

10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008707

33






Which do you think is the best of the three models of peer review which were just described?

• Single-blind

• Double-blind

• Open

Poll question

34

4.0

Innovations and looking ahead

35






Criticisms of peer review – targets for innovation

36






eLife and Frontiers journals enable reviewers to discuss the manuscript among themselves before communicating a unified decision to the authors

Collaborative peer review

http://elifesciences.org/about

http://www.frontiersin.org/about/reviewsystem

37






Peerage of Science:

• Peer review of peer review – reports are scored by other reviewers in terms of their quality

Publons:

• Reviewers can record, showcase and verify their peer review activity

• BMC Health Services Research has a systems integration with Publons so that this process is easier for the reviewer

Reviewer credit

https://publons.com/home/

38






• With reviewer agreement, reviewers’ reports may be transferred if an article is rejected and transfer recommended

Portable peer review

39






Portable/ decoupled peer review

• Authors submit manuscript to Peerage of Science, before submitting to any journal

• Submitting Author decides the deadlines for every stage of the process

• Once submitted, any qualified, non-affiliated Peer can engage to review the manuscript

• Peer reviews are themselves peer reviewed, increasing and quantifying the quality of peer review

• The peer review process is available concurrently to all subscribing journals, with automated event tracking

https://www.peerageofscience.org/

40






Usually in addition to usual peer review process

• Comments

• Social media

F1000 Research

• Only conducts post publication peer review

• Article status summary

Post publication peer review

41






• Pilot at BMC Psychology

• Addresses the problem of reviewers and editors judging studies more harshly if they report a negative result

• Encourages detailed assessment of the methods and rationale

Results-free peer review

Review of manuscript

without results and discussion

Decision – reject or accept in

principle

If acceptance then results and discussion added

Review of complete

manuscript Final decision

42






Stat Reviewer – developed by Tim Houle and Chadwick DeVoss

• Tool developed using machine learning techniques

• Can check for adherence of manuscripts to common reporting guidelines CONSORT, STROBE, STARD, ARRIVE

• Produces a report for authors to highlight missing information

Artificial intelligence: a peerless review?

43






Which innovation in the process of doing peer review interests you most?

• Collaborative peer review

• Portable/ decoupled peer review

• Post-publication peer review

• Results-free peer review

• Automated peer review using artificial intelligence

Poll question

44






What other kinds of innovations are happening?

Innovations

New metrics

Public involvement

Artificial intelligence

45






46






Research ideas

Study proposal

Methodology

Ethical approval Communication materials

Peer Review

Dissemination/ Lay summaries How?

Building public input into research

47






• Crowdsourcing/citizen science

• Patient/public perspectives in clinical practice guidelines

• Patient/public peer reviewers (Research Involvement and Engagement/BMJ)

• Lay summaries

• Commenting on research proposals/applications

• Co-applicants on a research projects

• Involvement in identifying research priorities

• Helping inform the design of data collection tools, for example, piloting a questionnaire

• As members of a project advisory or steering group

Public involvement: what is happening now?

48






Artificial intelligence: suggesting the next step?

49






• Webinar 4, 9th June: Research and publication ethics Presented by Stephanie Boughton, Medical Editor, Research Integrity Group at BioMed Central.

• Webinar 5, 23rd June: Being a peer reviewer – guidance and how to approach your first review Presented by Hilary Logan, Editor for BMC Health Services Research and academic editors from BioMed Central journals.

Future webinars

50






50 Updating footer To update the footer: • Click into the text box on the slide


Checking updates • The text updates will not flow

through to all the slide layouts as some have been placed manually. Therefore you may need to manually update other text boxes such as the divider slides etc

Thank you – and more questions #BMCHSGweb @DrDiMarshall @LizHoffmanbmc @tallscientist

Documents

BioMed Central PowerPoint presentation title goes here · Publication models and open access Liz Hoffman, Journal Development Manager, BioMed Central Diana Marshall, Publisher, BMC-series