Post on 21-Feb-2017
New Perspectives in Scientific Publishing –Perspektiven des wissenschaftlichen Publizierens
Forschungszentrum Jülich21. Dezember 2016
Alexander GrossmannHTWK Leipzig and ScienceOpen
Alexander GrossmannPerspectives in Scientific Publishing
2
Perspectives in Scientific Publishing
� Scholarly publishing worldwide
� Current status
� Scientific communication tomorrow?
� Quality assessment: new models
� Summary: Perspectives
3
Scholarly Publishing worldwide
� All types of scholarly publishing worldwide
� STM (Scientific, Technical, Medical) only, English only
� Revenues (2013): USD 24.5 billion
� journals: USD 10b (2008: USD 8b)
� books: USD 5b
� Split by territories:
� U.S.: 55%
� Europe/Middle East: 28%
� Asia/Pacific: 14%
From: STM Report 4th Ed. 2015, Mark Ware
4
Scholarly Publishing worldwide
� Revenues STM:
$24.5b (2013)
� Profit Margin:
31 to 38% (EBITDA)25%
13%
12%11%
9%
30%
Top 5 Global STM Publishers
Elsevier
Wiley-Blackwell
Springer
Taylor & Francis
ACS
Other
5
Scholarly Publishing worldwide
� 12m active researchers worldwide in the
scientific, technical & medical areas (STM)
� 8m researchers in humanities & social sciences (HSS)
� 24,000 scholarly journals (in STM only)
� 17,000+ academic societies
� 2,000 scientific publishers
� 2m published journal articles per year
6
Scholarly Publishing worldwide
� 12m active researchers worldwide in the
scientific, technical & medical areas (STM)
� 8m researchers in humanities & social sciences (HSS)
� 24,000 scholarly journals (in STM only)
� 17,000+ academic societies
� 2,000 scientific publishers
� 2m published journal articles per year
7
Too much information?
Over 2m new papers per year in STM only…
8
Too much information?
…and about 4m submissions per year.
9
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Problems:
� too much information
� high rejection rates
� slow publication process
10
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Days from receival to acceptance:
no credits for reviewers
� expensive subscription pricing
Data source: 3,482 journals in 2014
From: Daniel Himmelstein – https://github.com/dhimmel/plostime
11
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Days from acceptance to publication:
no credits for reviewers
� expensive subscription pricing
Data source: 3,482 journals in 2014
From: Daniel Himmelstein – https://github.com/dhimmel/plostime
12
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Problems:
� too much information
� slow publication process & high rejection rates
� anonymous & non-transparent reviewing process
� no credits for reviewers
� expensive subscription pricing
13
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Journal pricing by discipline (per subscription):
� too much information
� slow publication process & high rejection rates
� anonymous & non-transparent reviewing process
� no credits for reviewers
� expensive subscription pricing
� IF-driven „glamorous journals“ (R. Schekman)
� …
USD
1.500
1.000
500
100
USD
1.500
1.000
500
100
Serial crisis
14
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
� Problems:
� too much information
� slow publication process & high rejection rates
� anonymous & non-transparent reviewing process
� no credits for reviewers
� expensive subscription pricing
� IF-driven „glamorous journals“ (R. Schekman)
15
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
IF not correlated with relevance of article
16
Scientific Publishing: Present Status
17
Scientific Publishing: Present Status?
R. Schekman:
The Guardian
Dec 9 (2013)
Is this the present status…?
18
Scientific Publishing: Present Status?
R. Schekman:
The Guardian
Dec 9 (2013)
…do we need a new culture of sharing?
19
New culture of sharing…
Sharing rather than
ownership:
the new normal for
the next generation.
Creative Commons
CC-BY licenses
supports sharing vs.
ownership model of
copyright.
Image Credit: Bike Sharing Shanghai, John Flickr CC-BY
20
New culture of sharing…
Image Credit: Bike Sharing Shanghai, John Flickr CC-BY
Open Access as sine qua non conditio
21
Open Access Publishing worldwide
� Journals:
� 8,970 journals worldwide (listed in DOAJ)
� with 2.2 million (gold) OA articles
� Revenues: $172m in 2013 (+34.0%)
� Books:
� 1/3 of publishers have an OA book list
� However only 5% of total publishing output
� Small growth of OA book list (44% of publishers) or no growth at all (22%)
� Libraries:
� OA books listed in the catalogue: 57% yes; 36% no
From: Survey of Publishers Communication Group, 2015, and DOAJ, 2016.
22
Open Access Publishing worldwide
Open Access Article Publication Charges (APC)
2012/13
Quelle: Wellcome Trust 2013(Gold) Open Access fees too high?
23
New culture of communication…
Social Networks
Communities
Crowd-sourcing
Open DataOpen Access
Repositories
Altmetrics
Open Peer Review
Science 2.0
What else do we need…?
CC0 Pixabay
Perspectives in Scientific Publishing Alexander Grossmann
25
New projects in scientific communication
1991 2000 2005 2008 2010 2012 2014
26
Open Access and open peer review…
27
Alternative article level metrics…
28
Collaborative writing…
29
Self-promoting and author marketing…
30
More visibility and usage tracking…
31
Publishing in transition...
� Ways to publish research today
� Directories (linking lists)
� Repositories or pre-print server
� OA journals (subject-based)
� Journal databases (‚mega journals‘)
� Aggregation networks
Scientific communication today?
32
Scientific Communication today…
Peer Review
Scientists
= Authors
= Readers
= Reviewers
33
Scientific Communication today…
Source:
Tagesspiegel
(18/6/2014)
34
Scientific Communication today…
Peer Review
Scientists
= Authors
= Readers
= Reviewers
?
?
35
Scientific Communication today…
Peer Review
Scientists
= Authors
= Readers
= Reviewers
?
?
?
?
How to set up such a novel workflow…?
36
Scientific Communication today…
Peer Review
Scientists
= Authors
= Readers
= Reviewers
?
?
?
?
…Scientific communication tomorrow?
37
Scientific Communication tomorrow…?
arXiv
PMC
sciELO
Rep…
38
Scientific Communication tomorrow…?
arXiv
PMC
sciELO
Rep…
39
Scientific Communication tomorrow…?
Dr. C. Conrad
Overlay journal principle
arXiv
PMC
sciELO
Rep…
40
� Concept in principal discussed byTimothy Gowers
� University of Cambridge, UK
� Fields Medal 1998
� Elsevier Boycott 2012 (Cost of Knowledge project)
� Massively collaborative Math project Nature 461 879 (2009)
� Ideas: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/how-might-we-get-to-a-new-
model-of-mathematical-publishing/.
� Launched Discrete Analysis 2016 as an arXiv-based overlay journalhttps://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal
Overlay Journal Principle
Quality assessment…?
41
� Concept in principal discussed byTimothy Gowers
� University of Cambridge, UK
� Fields Medal 1998
� Elsevier Boycott 2012 (Cost of Knowledge project)
� Massively collaborative Math project Nature 461 879 (2009)
� Ideas: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/how-might-we-get-to-a-new-
model-of-mathematical-publishing/.
� Launched Discrete Analysis 2016 as an arXiv-based overlay journalhttps://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal
Overlay Journal Principle
Peer review… in the classical way?
42
� Concept in principal discussed byTimothy Gowers
� University of Cambridge, UK
� Fields Medal 1998
� Elsevier Boycott 2012 (Cost of Knowledge project)
� Massively collaborative Math project Nature 461 879 (2009)
� Ideas: https://gowers.wordpress.com/2011/10/31/how-might-we-get-to-a-new-
model-of-mathematical-publishing/.
� Launched Discrete Analysis 2016 as an arXiv-based overlay journalhttps://gowers.wordpress.com/2015/09/10/discrete-analysis-an-arxiv-overlay-journal
Overlay Journal Principle
Public post-publication peer review.
43
� Open and public process
� Fully transparent:
� Who?
� Which experience?
� What?
� Comments and Replies are openly shared
� Reviewing not limited to a narrow time frame
� Report can be cited (credited by DOI)
� Reviewer is acknowledged
Post-publication peer review (PPPR)
See eg: N. Kriegeskorte: Front Comput Neurosci. 6 (2012) 1–18
F1000, The Winnower, ScienceOpen.
44
� Open and public process
� Fully transparent:
� Who?
� Which experience?
� What?
� Comments and Replies are openly shared
� Reviewing not limited to a narrow time frame
� Report can be cited (credited by DOI)
� Reviewer is acknowledged
Post-publication peer review (PPPR)
N. Kriegeskorte: Front Comput Neurosci. 6 (2012) 1–18Does post-publication peer review work?
See eg: N. Kriegeskorte: Front Comput Neurosci. 6 (2012) 1–18
45
ScienceOpen … peer review statistics
Source: ScienceOpen (2015)
46
� Concept has been implemented for all disciplines
and 27+ million papers at ScienceOpen
Overlay Journal and PPPR Principle
47
� Open Access
� Overlay journal principle
� Alternative article metrics
� Collaborative writing
� Open peer reviewing
� Open research data
� Self-promotion and author marketing
Scientific Communication tomorrow…?
Publishing as a service…?
48
Again, too much information….?
In summary…
49
Scientific Publishing: Perspectives
Traditional Publishing Current Trends
journals = content containers interdisciplinary databasefor specific discipline = „megajournal“ or Collections
IF does not provide information article level metrics (altmetrics)about relevance of research
no data available open data
limiting article type to open to reproduction papersoriginal or „new“ research and negative results studies
static publication „living“ document; versioning
closed peer-review open evaluation; anonymous reviewers post-publication peer-review
no credits for reviewer acknowledgement of reviews
no interaction between (open) communication andauthors and readers active feedback
content is paywalled open access (OA)
library pays for APCs paid by governmentaljournal subscriptions or institutional funding partners
authors prefer prestigous andhighly ranked journals to publish ?
50
Literature
www.scienceopen.com/collection/Science20
51
Thank you!
Alexander GrossmannProf. Dr. rer. nat.
HTWK LeipzigUniversity of Applied Sciencesand
ScienceOpen
@SciPubLab
Alexander.Grossmann@htwk-leipzig.de