Repurposing LNG terminals for Hydrogen Ammonia: Feasibility and Cost Saving
Rethinking the Functions of a Journal - some case studies from PLoS by Mark Patterson
1. www.plos.org
“Re-engineering the scientific journal”
Mark Patterson, Director of Publishing
EDIT Meeting, Copenhagen: Oct, 2010
Committed to making the world’s
scientific and medical literature
a public resource
2. www.plos.org
The functions of journals
• Registration
– Who’s done what and when?
• Certification
– Is the work sound?
• Dissemination
– The right information to the people who need it
• Preservation
– Archiving for future generations
Roosendaal and Geurts
6. www.plos.org
PLoS Founding Board of Directors
Harold Varmus
PLoS Co-founder and Chairman of the Board
President and CEO of
Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
Patrick O. Brown
PLoS Co-founder and Board Member
Howard Hughes Medical Institute
& Stanford University School of Medicine
Michael B. Eisen
PLoS Co-founder and Board Member
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
& University of California at Berkeley
7. www.plos.org
• Establish high quality journals
– put PLoS and open access on the map
• Build a more extensive OA publishing
operation
– an open access home for every paper
– achieve sustainability
• Make the literature more useful
– to scientists and the public
PLoS publishing strategy
20. The life cycle of a research article
Journal name is keyPublication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Rejects
2-3 Experts
Is it rigorous?
Good enough?
Right audience?
Takes months/years
21. www.plos.org
What do we need to do
before research is
published?
What is best left until
after publication?
23. www.plos.org
• Editorial criteria
– Scientifically rigorous
– Ethical
– Properly reported
– Conclusions supported by the data
• Editors and reviewers do not ask
– How important is the work?
– Which is the relevant audience?
• Use online tools to sort and filter scholarly
content after publication, not before
PLoS ONE’s Key Innovation –
The editorial process
28. www.plos.org
How do we measure ‘impact’?
The impact factor of the journal in
which an article is published.
Recommended reading:
Adler, R., Ewing, J. Taylor, P. Citation statistics. A report from the
International Mathematical Union.
http://www.mathunion.org/publications/report/citationstatistics/
29. www.plos.org
How could we measure ‘impact’?
• Citations
• Web usage
• Expert Ratings
• Social bookmarking
• Community rating
• Media/blog coverage
• Commenting activity
• and more…
Current technology now makes it possible to add
these metrics automatically
At the ARTICLE LEVEL, we could track:
45. www.plos.org
Next steps for article-level
metrics
• More sources for each data type
– Citations, blog coverage
• New data sources
– F1000, Mendeley
• Expert analysis and tools
• Broader adoption
– By publishers
– By tenure committees, funders etc
• Develop and adhere to standards
46.
47. The goals of PLoS Hubs
• Aggregate open access content
– Wherever it is published
• Add value to content by connecting
with data
• Build communities around content
Demonstrate the power of open access
51. Steering Committee
Michael J. Donoghue
Yale University
Jonathan A. Eisen
University of California, Davis
Georgina Mace
Imperial College, London
David Mindell
California Academy of Sciences
Roderic D. M. Page
University of Glasgow
Richard Pyle
Bernice P. Bishop Museum
Curators
Edward Vanden Berghe
Ocean Biogeographic Information System
Thomas Brooks
NatureServe
Brian Fisher
California Academy of Sciences
Robert Guralnick
University of Colorado, Boulder
Peter Kareiva
The Nature Conservancy
Patricia Miloslavich
University Simon Bolivar
Hugh Possingham
Univerity of Queensland
Andy Purvis
Imperial College London
Peter Roopnarine
California Academy of Sciences
Quentin Wheeler
Arizona State University
The Hub
Community
52. Next steps for PLoS Hubs
• Enhance and automate content enrichment
• Develop Hubs community
– allow users to ‘follow’ a curator
• Extend literature sources beyond PMC
– ideally to non-OA content
• Extend Hubs concept to other disciplines
• Make Hubs easy to replicate
54. www.plos.org
New models of scholarly communication
1 year
100
days
1 day
Conventional PLoS ONE PLoS Currents
Publication
55. www.plos.org
• An innovative forum for the rapid
exchange of results and ideas
• Registration
– Articles are date-stamped and citable
• Certification
– Reviewed by expert researchers
• Dissemination
– All content is open access
• Preservation
– Archived at PubMed Central
PLoS Currents: Key features
56. www.plos.org
Seeking Lessons in Swine Flu Fight
“Another problem is communication.
Officials and experts say they have learned a lot
about human swine influenza. But relatively
little of that information...has been reported
and published. Some experts said researchers
were waiting to publish in journals, which can
take months or longer.”
New York Times, August 10th, 2009
Lawrence K. Altman, M.D.
PLoS Currents – Inspiration
57. www.plos.org
Google Knol:
Author(s) assemble
content and control
access and editing.
Authors submit content
to PLoS Currents.
PLoS Currents:
Expert reviewers control
posting of content,
commenting and version
control.
PubMed Central:
Immediate transfer from
PLoS Currents site;
stable identifier and
permanent archiving.
PLoS Currents – Workflow
61. www.plos.org
• Quick prescreen by Editors
• Submission sent to Board of
Reviewers.
• Is it legitimate science and does
it contain any obvious
methodological, ethical or legal
violations?
• Editors review comments
before decision sent to author.
69. www.plos.org
PLoS Currents
• Very fast
• Cost-effective
• Reviewed by experts
• Citable
• Version control
• Archived at PubMed Central
• Included in PubMed
• Flexible and easy to replicate
70. www.plos.org
PLoS Currents – New sections
• Launched on Sept 2nd
– PLoS Currents: Huntington Disease (produced
with support from CHDI Foundation)
– PLoS Currents: Evidence on Genomic Tests (in
collaboration with the CDC)
• To be launched in a few weeks
– PLoS Currents: Tree of Life (phylogenetic
analyses)
71. The life cycle of a research article
Journal name is keyPublication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Rejects
2-3 Experts
Is it rigorous?
Good enough?
Right audience?
Takes months/years
72. New models of scholarly
communication
Focus on the articlePublication
Research
Submission
Peer review
Rejects
2-3 Experts
Is it rigorous?
Good enough?
Right audience?
Takes weeks/months
Enhanced article
Article-level metrics
Integrated with data
Organization in Hubs
PLoS
Currents
