Updated and edited version of http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-schorarly-publishing-today Updated again on 26-06-2009 and again in July 2011.

1. Whatiswrongwithscholarlypublishingtoday? Björn Brembs, Freie Universität Berlin http://brembs.net http://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii

2. Publishing yesterday… 1665: Onejournal: Philosophical Transactionsofthe Royal Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)

4. 1.5 millionpublications/year

5. 3% annualgrowth

6. 1 millionauthors

7. 10-15 millionreadersat >10,000 institutions

8. 1.5 billiondownloads/yearSource: Mabe MA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22

9. Functionality 19thcenturypublishingfor a 21stcenturyscientificcommunity

10. Functionality At least four different searchtoolstobesure not to miss any relevant literature?

11. Functionality When we finally find the literature, we have to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to us?

12. Functionality We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?

13. Functionality We have to re-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?

14. Functionality Every homepage has had an access counter since 1993 but we don’t know how often our paper has been downloaded?

15. Functionality Nothing happens when we click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"?

16. Hyperlinks Nothing happens when we click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"? First demonstration: 1968 WWW: 1989 Stanford Research Institute: NLS Tim Berners-Lee: CERN

17. Think…

18. Why? Who‘stoblamethatourpublishingsystemis so lame?

19. We, thescientists! We decide how and where to publish

20. We, thescientists! We are producers and consumers in personal union

21. We, thescientists! We chose to outsource scientific communication to publishers

22. Publishers A publicgood in private hands

23. Elsevier 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 300,000 reviewers are working for Elsevier Part of Reed Elsevier group

24. Elsevier

25. Elsevier Rofecoxib=Vioxx (Merck)

27. Elsevier “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

28. Elsevier “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

29. Elsevier “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

30. Elsevier “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

31. The Big Three (2009/10) (includes Springer) Source: http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/127-1.pdf

32. Profits

33. Journals Crisis (not just Elsevier!) % Change Modifiedfrom ARL: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstats06.pdf, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf

34. Subscription Pricing KIT Library 10 Most expensive journal subscriptions 2010/11 http://www.bibliothek.kit.edu/cms/teuerste-zeitschriften.php

35. Subscription Pricing SOURCE:LJ PERIODICALS PRICE SURVEY 2010

36. Subscription Pricing MPG: 18 Mio €/y forliterature. 95% tothethreemainpublishers. UK: 94.6 Mio £/y in subscription (2003/4)

37. What a magnificent ship! What makes it go? Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson

38. Library responses Request increased budgets Cut subscriptions Collective purchase of electronic journals Rely on document delivery or ILL UC: boycott NPG! Ray English

39. Scientific Publishing:

40. Survey: Journal Access David Nicholas

41. Publishing yesterday…

42. Scholarship as a Public Good Funded by Taxpayers

43. Scholarship as a Public Good Supported publicly

44. Scholarship as a Public Good Created in the non-profit sector

45. Scholarship as a Public Good No profit for article authors

46. Scholarship as a Public Good Profit for corporate publishers

47. Scholarship A Public Good in Private Hands

48. Scientific Publishing:

49. Think…

50. Onesolution: Open Access “Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” Peter Suber

51. Open Access Gold OA Publishing in an Open Access journal Currently 6722peer-reviewed open access journals listed in the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals doaj.org Green OA Self-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed Central Over 1400 open repositories already established world-wide

52. Digital

53. But: Everything’s Gone Digital! www.scopus.com www.pubmed.gov http://ukpmc.ac.uk isiknowledge.com scholar.google.com Duncan Hull

54. Welcome to Digital Isolation different disciplines – different information silos

55. Welcome to Digital Impersonal and unsociable “who the hell are you”? Where are “my” papers? What are my friends and colleagues reading? What are the experts reading? What is popular this week / month / year?

56. Welcome to Digital Obsolete models of publication Not everything fits publication-sized holes Micro-attribution Mega-attribution Digital contributions (databases, software, wikis/blogs?)

57. Welcome to Digital Cold Identity of publications and authors is inadequate

58. Open Access Identity Crisis Howcan I find anything?

59. Identity Crisis: Which publication? 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

60. Identity Crisis: Whichauthor?

61. Identity Crisis: Whichtopic?

62. Think…

63. Onesolution: Unique identifiers Difficult with fragmented information silos

64. Onesolution: Unique identifiers Several initiatives

65. Onesolution: Unique identifiers Examples: PubMedID, DOI, ORCID, Semantic Web

66. ORCID

67. Semantic Web Machine-readablemeaning Technically non-trivial Promising progress Tim Berners-Lee http://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/Overview.html

68. The Semantic Web for Dummies (like me) URIUniform Resource Identifier, like: http://id.archeology.edu/weapon/spear + XMLCustomized tags, like: <spear>Lance</spear> + RDFRelations, in triples, like: (Lance) (is_spear_of) (Longinus) + OntologiesHierarchies of concepts, like weapon -> projectile -> spear-> Lance + Inference rulesLike: If (person) (owns) (spear), then (person) (throws) (spear) = Semantic Web!

69. Digital dystopia Information (Overload) Crisis Or filter failure?

70. More scientists, morepublications

71. Information Crisis 1.5 millionpublications per year in 24,000 journals

72. Information Crisis Finding ‘my’ publications is impossible!

73. Information Crisis PublishorPerish: numberofpublications

74. Information Crisis 60-300 applicants per tenure-trackposition

75. Information Crisis Reading enoughpublicationsisimpossible!

76. Think…

77. Onesolution: JournalRank Source Normalized Impact per Paper Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor Eigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters) ScImago JournalRank (SJR) Scopus: SNIP, SJR

78. Onesolution: JournalRank Onlyreadpublicationsfromhigh-rankingjournals

79. Job applications

80. Job applicationinstructions 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: Completelistofpublications, including original researchpapersasfirstauthor, seniorauthor, impactpoints total and in the last 5 years, withmarkedfirstand last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index accordingto Web of Science) for all publications.

81. Metrics Lies, damn lies andbibliometrics

82. Show of hands: 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?

83. The Impact Factor Introduced in 1960’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI citations articles 2008 and 2009 2010 IF=5 Articles published in 08/09 were cited an average of 5 times in 10.

84. The Impact Factor Journal X IF 2010= All citationsfromTR indexedjournalsin 2010 topapers in journal X Numberofcitablearticlespublished in journal X in 2008/9 €30,000-130,000/yearsubscriptionrates Covers ~11,500 journals (Scopuscovers ~16,500)

85. Main Problems withthe IF Negotiable Irreproducible Mathematicallyunsound

86. Negotiable PLoSMedicine, 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) CurrentBiology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003 BoughtbyCell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…

88. Not Reproducible Rockefeller University Press boughttheirdatafrom Thomson Reuters Upto 19% deviationfrompublishedrecords 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

89. Not MathematicallySound Left-skeweddistributions Weakcorrelationof individual articlecitation rate withjournal 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

90. Lord Kelvin “Nearly all the grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement”

91. Job applications

92. Message: Where you publish is more important to us than what you publish!

93. Think…

94. Other solution: social bookmarks 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”

95. Article-level Metrics 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

99. PLoS ONE 4.5 years old Almost doubling in volume each year 2007: 1,231 articles 2008: 2,722 articles 2009: 4,310 articles 2010: 6,784 articles 2011: >12,000 articles Largest journal in the world Over 1,000 Academic editors More than 30,000 authors Fully peer reviewed but the review / acceptance process does not concern itself with ‘impact’, ‘novelty’ (or other subjective measures)

100. Publications by PLoS ONE per quarter since launch

101. Albert Einstein "Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."

102. Metrics Won‘tgoaway Shouldalwaysbe a last resort Theyaremuchtoovaluabletobesatisfiedwiththecurrentpitifulstateofaffairs Let‘smakethemasgoodaswepossiblycan!

103. My Digital Utopia: 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