Moderate panel discussion on FOAM Open Access Medical Publishing Data sharing

1. Royal North Shore Hospital
Publication and the future of critical care knowledge dissemination
Simon Finfer
sfinfer@georgeinstitute.org.au
@icuresearch

2. We are all conflicted

3. The
Discussants

4. Rob MacSweeney
@ CritCareReviews
http://www.criticalcarereviews.com/
Critical care horizons - a genuine open access critical care opinion-
based journal, free to publish with and free to read

5. Flavia Machado
Intensivist, researcher, past editor-in-chief
Sao Paulo, Brazil where things are different and hard!
Member GSA Executive Board
@FlaviaSepsis

6. Rinaldo Bellomo
@ BellomoRinaldo
Academic, Researcher,
Disrupter, Writer,
Editor-in-chief CCR
(Impact factor 3.317)

7. @ First_do_noharm
A/Prof. Emergency Medicine
Diana Egerton-Warburton

8. Simon Carley
Emergency physician, educator, researcher, middle ranking editor
on a middle ranking journal, blogger, podcaster
@EMManchester
Impact factor
1.861
the virtual hospital at StEmlyns and the stemlynsblog

9. Kathy Rowan
ICNARC, researcher, writer, reviewer, iconoclast, no BS
@KathyRowan101

10. Richard Smith
Ex-Editor of BMJ, blogger, critic, bon viveur …
@Richard56

11. What are we going to give you?
Some:
Understanding of publication processes from the inside
Understand the controversies and tensions in today’s processes
Understand huge benefits & huge risks that come from a connected world
Explore the ideal process to disseminate knowledge for the benefit of our patients

14. • Concept – Mid 2001
• Funding application 2002 - 2003
• Funded – NHMRC 2003 CIHR 2005
• Recruitment (6104) – Dec 2004 – November 2008
• Analysis and write up – November 2008 to March 2009
• Presented and Published – March 2009
• (ADA AACE Guidelines same day)
• Second Publication – September 2012

15. Models of publication (accepted paper)
Traditional
1. Paper submitted
2. Primary editorial review
3. Sent for peer review
4. Comments to authors (most anonymous)
5. Authors respond
6. Repeat 4 & 5 once or several times
7. Paper accepted
8. Proofs reviewed
9. Published online
10. Published in print
11. Available to subscribers or open access (if the
researcher pays)
12. Letters to editor
13. Authors reply
F1000 model

16. 1. Authorship criteria checked
2. Submit paper and data
3. Plagiarism check
4. Competing interests check
5. Pay $1000
6. Published online
7. Open peer review
8. Article revision
9. Available open access

17. 1. Authorship criteria checked
2. Submit paper and data
3. Plagiarism check
4. Competing interests check
5. Pay $1000
6. Published online
7. Open peer review
8. Article revision
9. Available open access

19. Unregulated data sharing and other socialist utopias ……
Data – for the
many not the few!!

20. “Patients give their time, bodies and occasionally lives to research studies.
We then hold that behind a paywall to make huge profits for journals and
personal careers for researchers. This is disgustingly unethical.”
“Researchers, journals, editors etc. are all suckling at the teat of patient
altruism and the patients don't know this. Consent forms should state the
data will be limited in access and used to advance the career of the
researchers”

23. 1. Authorship criteria checked - formal appointment at a recognized research or clinical institution and
have reached a certain level of research-based qualification (such as a PhD or MD) (Endorsement of
ECR may be possible)
2. Submit paper- include the source data underlying the results, together with details of any software
used to process the results or say why not (ethics, privacy, data too large or under license). Data must
be de-identified using “safe harbor method” (removes 18 patient identifiers including all dates), data
files must meet set criteria, include software source code
3. Plagiarism check
4. Competing interests check (not automatic DQ)
5. Pay $1000
6. Published online
7. Open peer review by invitation – authors suggest peer reviewers
8. Article revision
9. Available open access

25. Data simulations
identify false positive
within subgroup effects
in 7 - 66% of analyses

26. Data simulations
identify false positive
within subgroup effects
in 7 - 66% of analyses

27. © 2016 American Medical Association. Confidential and Privileged.
Social responsibility: Reach of JAMA
• Readers
• 310,000 subscribers
• 150,000 MDs read weekly
content in CMJ
• 650,000 weekly eTOC alerts
• 1.5 million weekly on-line alerts
• 120,000 users TJN reader
• 20,000 MDs view content on
Univadis
• Social Network
• Twitter 195,000+
• Facebook 400,000+
• Listeners (monthly)
• 25,000 listen to EICs podcast
• 125,000 listen to other podcasts
• Viewers
• 2,000 view weekly author video
• 6,000,000 see/hear weekly
JAMA report video
• Learners
• 4500 participate in weekly CME
quizzes
27
We touch ~ 1.5M physicians each week with our content
2016 – 30 Million PDF/HTML downloads!!!

31. 2005 2013

39. Predatory journals and Online publication

40. Predatory journals and Online publication