31
OPEN Peer Review to save the world Michael Taylor (PhD, CPhys) National Observatory of Athens Patternizer AT gmail.com alpha @libreap p

Open Peer Review to Save the World

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Open Peer Review to Save the World

OPEN Peer Review to save the worldMichael Taylor (PhD, CPhys)

National Observatory of AthensPatternizer AT gmail.com

alpha @libreapp

Page 2: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Peer review… to save the world??!

• As we move toward a Type I civilization our socio-economic world is getting more global & interconnected…

Type I — a civilization that is able to harness all of the power P available on a single planet (Pearth ≈ 1.7 ×1017 W)

Type II — a civilization capable of harnessing the luminosity of its own star (Psun ≈ 3.9 ×1026 W)

Type III — a civilization with access to energy on the scale of the luminosity of its own galaxy (Pmilky way ≈ 4 ×1037 W)

𝐾=𝑙𝑜𝑔10 𝑃−6

10

Kardashev, Nikolai (1964) Soviet Astronomy 8: 217Sagan (1973) Cosmic Connection.

Cambridge Press, ISBN 0-521-78303-8

…meaning that systemic impacts are more macroscopic

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 3: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Modern impacts & threats are they just tabloid science ?!

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 4: Open Peer Review to Save the World

The Journal Publishing Model made us think...

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 5: Open Peer Review to Save the World

openscholar.org.uk

We got together with others to test new models

108 volunteers from 17 countries

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 6: Open Peer Review to Save the World

LIBRE = LIBerating REsearch but from what exactly?!

• PUBLICATION DELAYS slow processes & embargos• BARRIERS TO INFO paywall$• DEPENDENCE ON CITATION INDICES poor stats • COPYRIGHT LOSS no creative re-use (we need CC-

BY) • REJECTION RATES waste, curtail output & miss ops• RETRACTION RATES bad info stays in circulation• AUTHOR CHARGES knowledge divide• LOW VISIBILITY unindexed OA & “the long tail”• LIMITED PEER-REVIEW danger of bias with 2-3

people

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 7: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Publication delays >8 months (even before any embargo)

Björk & Solomon (2013) Journal of Informetrics 7(4), 914-923.

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 8: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Barriers to info paywall$ (and e.g. linguistic barriers)

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 9: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Dependence on citation indices poor statistics

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 10: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Copyright loss creates loss of creative re-use rights and OA

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 11: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Rejection Rates cause submission cascades & waste time

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 12: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Retraction Rates put lives at risk

Steen, R. G. (2011). Retractions in the medical literature: how many patients are put at risk by flawed research?. Journal of medical ethics, 37(11), 688-692.

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 13: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Figure 2. Percentage of retractions vs. percentage of 2010 Web of Science records among 12 broad scholarly fields.

Retraction Rates may be an early warning bell about Gold OA

Grieneisen & Zhang M (2012) PLoS ONE 7(10): e44118.

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 14: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Retraction Rates mean wrong info stays in circulation for years

Fang, Steen & Casadevall (2012) PNAS 109(42), 17028-17033.

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 15: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Journal Peer Review is limited, left to trust and prone to bias

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 16: Open Peer Review to Save the World

An ideal (journal-independent) model should be …

COOPERATIVE free & data-linkedFAST un-moderated & zero-embargo FAIR accessible, OA and persistentHONEST transparentINSPIRING social & credit-givingOBJECTIVE collectively wise & reproducibleINNOVATIVE open source

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 17: Open Peer Review to Save the World

A new model the “Open Publication”

ARCHIVEDZERO-EMBARGO

OA REVISION+ LINKED DATA

+ OA PEER-REVIEW+ META-DATA STACK

=

“OPEN PUBLICATION”

INDEPENDENT PEER-REVIEW+ ANNOTATIONS

+ SOCIAL COMMENTARY

ARCHIVED ZERO-EMBARGO

OA ARTICLE+ LINKED DATA

PACKAGE+

DISSEMINATE

0-embargo OA repositories

LIBRE

AuthorsInstitutesAssociationsJournals

1

23

4

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / patternizer @gmail.com

0-embargo OA repositories

Page 18: Open Peer Review to Save the World

LIBRE is our attempt at demonstrating independent peer-review

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 19: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 20: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 21: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 22: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 23: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 24: Open Peer Review to Save the World

LIBRE is open source and we welcome your input at GitHub

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 25: Open Peer Review to Save the World

www.openscholar.org.uk/independent-peer-review-initiative

Greece is the launchpad for the Independent Peer Review Initiative

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 26: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Greece is in 12th position (1.13% of the top 1% cited articles EVER)

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 27: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Greece has HUGE research output potential

Press WH (2013) What's So Special About Science (And How Much Should We Spend on It?). Science, 342(6160), 817-822.

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 28: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Greece is VERY active & innovative in OA

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 29: Open Peer Review to Save the World

Beckett, C., & Inger, S. (2006). Self-archiving and journal subscriptions: co-existence or competition. Publishing Research Consortium: PRC Summary Papers, 2.

It’s important to ask librarians what do they really want

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 30: Open Peer Review to Save the World

So, can (independent) Peer Review save the world MAYBE

Björk, Bo-Christer et al (2009) PloS one 5.6: e11273.

Gargouri & Harnad (2010) Eprints: August 28. 2010

HELP US TO MANDATE IPRAT OA REPOSITORIES

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Page 31: Open Peer Review to Save the World

MICHAEL TAYLOR / openscholar.org.uk / @libreapp / [email protected]

Inspired by the essay…

Many thanks for your thoughts