 Gwyn Helgyrchon yda, ddechrau y mae angen yn fywyd a wedi ddweud o'r awr erbyn, Iefn Llyfr �edrych, ac mae'r iawn i'r Llyfr Wyrdd mewn gan ein hollbeth Cymru, iawn i dechrau'r Llyfr, i'u Cymru i Llyfr, i'r Llyfr Wyrdd, i'u Cymru i Llyfr Wyrdd i'u Cymru i Llyfr Wyrdd. Yn ni'n bywyd â gweithio ar ei gwlwch, nhw'n yw yn ei wneud, ac yn ei wneud bywyd Roeddwn i'n ddechrau bod yn bwysig, roeddwn i'n glwyddiadol gweithgwyrd gyda'r event. Yn y pethau, ac y gallwn ni wedi'u gofyn i'r streaming yw'r cyntaf yw'r gweithgwyrd gyda'r gweithgwyrd gyda'r gweithgwyrd. Felly, mae hwnna phobl yn hyn yn gweithgaf. Felly, mae'n meddwl i'r gweithgwyrd gyda'r gweithgwyrd. Felly, y byddai hwn yn lieuch cyhoeddwr wedi'i lleol ymwneud yn holl iddyn nhw'r mwrddion Robert firedwyr y cyhoeddwr yn erbyn i ddod o gweithio cymhwyno'r awddiadau oれ i ddalwch ar gyfer mae oedd yn cymrydau nowydd. Mae'r cychwyn wedi ar gyfer cyngorol a gwahanol awddiadau arlaedd, ymddir i gael gŷlio dda i gael y 21 yma chi, ac i gael ei ddweud bod yn llwyfodol gyda'r 22 yma, Llywodraeth yng Nghymru yw hwn yn iawn i'r ffosgar gwyball yma o mynedd a'u cyfarwyddoch chi i'r maes cyffrindwyr yma o rhangrifret, allan o ôl ysgol, os ym gynghysbeth a gweithio'r bwrdd, oesiaid effects o'r planedau. Rydym yn ychydig ar hwnnw, rydym yn cyflwynd wneud ond y dwylo'n gweithio'r mynedd yn gyfr분 y byddoch chi'n wych yn gylem, yw ar gyfer y cyfrindigol a gweithio a'r byddoch yn dangod. Felly, we will also hear about some of the policy and advocacy work being undertaken alongside business innovations. I'm going to invite each of our 4 speakers to make opening remarks, around about 10 minutes each, although at least four of them have said 10 minutes might stretch to 15, but we'll try and keep them under control. Then, we'll open up and invite the panel to sit at the front for discussion. Mae'r ffôr yw yw'r ffôr, fel yma, yn y ffôr i'n gweithio, byddwch yn ddiddordeb iawn eu hwnnw, a'r fawr i'r fawr yn ddiddordeb iawn, fel yw'r wneud yn ddod yn gweithio a'r adreffau y bydd yn y ddod y cyfrail a'r ffôr yn ddiddordeb iawn. Mae'r ffôr yn yr ysgol yn ddiddordeb iawn, fel ymgyrchu cyffredigol yn cael y fawr yn ddiddordeb iawn. Fy ffôr, yn cyfrail am y ddiddordeb iawn, cofawndyr a penirhaf Peir Jay. Peter has 20 years of experience in the academic publishing world. He started off with a PhD in optical physics and has held positions at the Institute of Physics, cure academics springer, SAGE, and most recently at PLOS, where he ran PLOS One and turned it into the mega journal that we all know and love today. There have been a bit of debate over the last few days about how that Peter will perform in song rather than in voice but enough money came in to ask to speak rather than sing. Peter will be followed by Rachel Barley, Rachel is vice president and director of open access at Wiley. Rachel joined Wiley in 2007 to be publisher of current protocols and more recently a portfolio of life sciences journals. Rachel moved into the open access role full time in 2012 before that she worked with nature in a variety of publishing roles. Our third speaker will be Jennifer Lynn from PLOS. She's passionate about open access and the broader political and social impacts that the disruption it might bring will afford. Jennifer was formerly a business consultant with Accenture and worked with a number of Fortune 500 companies and governments to develop and deploy a range of products and services. Jennifer's PhD is in political philosophy and she has taught at Johns Hopkins and our fourth speaker is Dr Mary Ann Marton. She is co-director of the National Centre for Microscopy and Imaging at UC San Diego. She joined the Department of Neurosciences there in 1993 where she is currently a professor in residence. She is principal investigator of the NIF project, the Neuroscience Information Framework, which is trying to arrive at uniform resource description activities in the field of neurosciences. But Mary Ann is here today to represent Force 11, a community of scholars, librarians, publishers and research funders that has come together to facilitate the change toward improved knowledge creation and sharing that we can bring about through the modern scholarly communications that I mentioned earlier and through the effective use of information technology. All of this is driven by a sense of open access has been around for a few years and to my mind certainly, and I invite the panellists to reflect on this, it is a step on the road towards open science and over the next 20 years journal articles, whether open or closed, will be surrounded by a range of other communication artefacts and as that moves towards a more open environment we will get a sense that that part of useful knowledge which is shareable will grow hopefully dramatically and allow us to create that informed citizenry that I described earlier and in turn help us to meet the aims of research funders who collectively, if you do a snapshot of all of their mission statements and strategic plans, say that they are in the business of fostering public engagement with research amongst other things and that brings me to my closing point which is about why open access is an important part of that journey towards open science because the traditional subscription models for the journal literature, whilst meeting the needs of most of the research community, pretty much exclude those in industry and government who are making the policies that change our lives and certainly exclude a lot of the public at large who deserve access to the best research that is out there. So with that in mind I'm going to invite Peter to speak, we'll then just keep things running along one after the other in alphabetical order and then we will join you at the front of the stage at the end of the four presentations. So Peter, welcome. Thanks Keith. Yeah, so I'm Pete Bynfield and I used to run PLOS ONE. I started working on PLOS ONE when it was publishing about 600 articles a year I think and then as of last year 2013 I think it published 37,000 articles. So PLOS ONE has grown dramatically and it's sort of spawned this concept of the mega journal which of course has been talked about a lot more. So I'm going to talk briefly about the mega journal and the growth of the mega journal and what that's doing to the market and then I want to talk a little bit about sort of change tack entirely and talk about open access and how a culture of openness actually sort of begets improvements in the process and then I'm going to be talking more about Peer Jay and Peer Jay is the journal, the publisher that I co-founded with Jason Hoyt from X-Mendley. I left PLOS ONE to co-found that and we're trying to outdo PLOS ONE at its own game. So this is a graph and you may not be able to see the lines very clearly but it's a graph I put together last year to show the growth of the mega journal model and it was a presentation I did actually up at UBC, British Columbia. You could google it and get a lot of the background for this talk but the point I was trying to make was that a lot of people focus on the growth of PLOS ONE year over year and this day is a little bit old, it goes through 2012 but the red line in the corner is the growth of PLOS ONE year over year, the publication output of PLOS ONE. And the addition from the blue line is PLOS ONE plus all the PLOS ONE clones of which Peer Jay is one but also Nature's scientific reports is a very prominent one, the BMJ Open, Sage Open. There's a number of journals that have launched in the last five years that are attempting to be PLOS ONE for their field so that blue line is PLOS ONE plus all of those other journals. Now the interesting thing, the real innovation of PLOS ONE was its approach to the editorial criteria of Peer Review and evaluating the content so PLOS ONE's I think conceptual breakthrough that it managed to make a success was that it would peer review scientific content only for rigor and methodology and soundness. Does this work deserve to be in the scientific literature? Does it meet all the minimum bars for reporting? Does the data follow the experimental method? Do the conclusions follow the data? The statistics good? So it looks at all of those kinds of things but it doesn't ask how impactful is this work? How sexy is it? What degree of advancement is it? What is the readership of this article? So PLOS ONE because it covers all of biology and medicine doesn't need to ask what is the readership and it certainly doesn't need to ask what is the impact and so on. But it turns out that sort of stealthily underneath the radar almost because everyone's focused on PLOS ONE there's a whole class of journals that basically apply the same editorial criteria as PLOS ONE but in niche areas so they're not the large mega journal that PLOS ONE has been come but they cover a specific subject area the frontiers in neuro robotics for example is one of these journals it only publishes work in neuro robotics whatever that might be we may hear later but so I think that the interesting thing there is that it applies the same editorial criteria of soundness robustness is the work to be published but it'll never grow that large because there's not that much work in neuro robotics but it turns out that all of the journals the frontiers journals most of the hindawi journals and most of the biomed central journals effectively apply this sort of non-impact related editorial criteria and when you throw them into the mix that's the upper line they basically double the volume of content being published under this sort of impact neutral editorial model and I think that that sort of top line is the one that a lot of people have missed because they focus on the PLOS ONE line but actually what you see there is in 2012 roughly 50 000 articles were published in the world in 2012 and 2013 you can see this curve is basically almost doubling every year so I don't know what it was in 13 or it'll be in 14 but conceivably this year there's there's more than 100 000 articles being published in the world for which no determination has been made by the peer review or selection process as to their impact their quality their sexiness their degree of advance things like that so I think the PLOS ONE model and the other journals that use it in various flavours I think it's a real success of the open access movement it's really changed I think the way people think of of open access content and we can debate whether that's in a good or a bad way but I think it's changed the game for how to reuse this content now there's now a large chunk of the open access literature probably more than half the open access literature is in this model which makes up a very big chunk of the global literature for which people are now going to have to figure out well actually how good or bad was that article and that's then spawned things like article-level metrics and so on so that's that and then changing tack entirely just to talk about pj I think one of the things we've done with pj is we've we've tried to start with a mindset that the the community is becoming more open so they're more happy about sharing and acting in a sort of open way and you know and you can see that in the world with people using facebook and and tweeting their thoughts openly to the world you're just the the global community is heading in this direction and the open access movement has sort of pushed the academic community along this way so with that mindset in place how can we develop incentive structures or functionality within our ecosystem that incentivises more openness you know if if you are open and you act openly in our system do you get greater benefits accruing back to you and so we've built an ecosystem that when you look at it there there are various points where we've done exactly that and the preprint server is one example so we've we have a preprint server and that's unpereviewed content it basically goes online immediately but it's online and openly available preprints there there is evidence to suggest that if you publish a preprint you get more citations for your peer reviewed version by publishing your preprint you can get feedback from the community earlier feedback sort of prepublication peer review almost the feedback from the community that you can then use in the submission to a peer reviewed journal and so we're we're seeing people submit to the preprint server leaving you there for a couple of months getting some comments improving the paper and then sending it on to the journal and that's getting content out there easier quicker faster and and freely this is entirely free to use the preprint server we're trying to incentivise that right now for example with if you submit a paper to the preprint server you actually get your publication in the journal for free so again we're trying to incentivise this sort of virtuous behaviour from people another way we do it is with what we're calling contribution points so whenever you take an action in our system if you're an author a reviewer an editor if you make a comment if you answer a question if you get your question voted up voted down you get points and these points at the moment don't don't mean anything the points don't add up to a free flight or anything but um but you can see though and if you can read this and you can tackle this out on our website but you'll see that we've structured this point system so as to try and incentivise good behaviour if you're more open if you're a peer reviewer that provides your name you get more points than if you're a peer reviewer who remains anonymous for example if you're somebody who contributes to the community by leaving a good answer on somebody's question your answer got voted up you get more points than somebody who left a bad answer and so again at the moment this is early days because our database of interactions is somewhat small the network effect hasn't kicked in yet but the intention is that by having this infrastructure in place we're incentivising people to do the right thing in the system and then my last slide but one they're basically related the other thing that we do is optional open peer review which i think is quite interesting so we provide reviewers and actually that would be this slide we provide reviewers with the option to name themselves in the system so they can provide their name to the authors and if they do they get points and then they'll end up with a review being credited against their profile and what it's optional so we just wanted to see if there was good uptake or not and this is the percentage uptake per recommendation type for their review which i think is very interesting if you're providing a positive review you're happy to leave your name a negative review you're happy to stay anonymous and sort of a stunning finding in human psychology but the overall is about 40% so i think the fact that 40% of reviewers are voluntarily happy to give their name is interesting and the other half of our open peer review system is that authors are given the option to make their entire peer review history publicly available so when their paper is published they can click a switch and the submission the review comments the editor decision letter the rebut letter the revision again everything is made public and at the moment just over 80% of authors are choosing to do this and again you know that's i think that's a higher percentage than we're expecting and it shows that you know if you provide the open tools people will adopt them the great benefit of doing this is for instance authors can now prove to the world that their work was peer reviewed you know there's the predatory journal problem of publishing papers that were never peer reviewed now they can you know with our system just flick a switch and see here here is the peer review and then when you go to the profile page for that peer reviewer you can click through and see that open peer review because they provided their name the authors made the review openly available and now you can see everything that went on and and credit it back to the the right person so those are some of the ways that we're trying to incentivise openness now that's about my 10 minutes thank you good afternoon um i'm rachel burley and i'm as Keith so very eloquently introduced me i'm wyleys director for open access um and i just wanted to very briefly give some opening remarks to talk about the um publishing activities from one of the larger traditional publishers like wyley and to talk a little bit more about how we're adapting for a more open um publishing environment so many of you will be familiar with wyley and some of the journals we publish we publish 1650 journals across all scholarly disciplines um and over half of those are on behalf of scholarly societies again across a wide variety of disciplines so that's our traditional business um but i was director of open access initially in 2011 and it was about that time that um we recognised that there was a growing need to provide more opportunities for authors to publish open gold open access um and or while we have the hybrid option in subscription journals which allow people to make their papers open um there was a growing demand um as Pete's demonstrated as well for fully open access journals so we now have um 54 fully open access journals and um in fact Marianne is editor of one of those it's the first time we met today but it was quite nice um of brain and behaviour which is one of those um and this is a really healthy vibrant program um of journals but in fact the majority of open access papers that we publish at wyley are hybrid open access in subscription journals so i mentioned the 1650 journals of those about 85% offer the option to an open access option um and it's called online open in our journals so to look at the uptake of this i just thought i would show you the percentage of content that this represents for wyley published journals on wyley online library um so in 2012 it was a relatively small number of papers we published about 150 000 research papers in that year and less than one percent of them were open access um that number has grown significantly and it's partly driven by the funders who are in some european countries um asking authors to publish and asking them to go for the gold option first so this year we're likely to publish about 10 and a half thousand um so it's a big growth area it's still primarily in the life and health sciences um about 80% of the papers we publish are in those two disciplines um there is a growing interest in some of the social sciences and humanities um and the physical sciences but it's still fairly low um less than 20% and in some fields there just isn't really um the funding to pay for the gold open access and in those fields then the authors tend to self archive if there's a funder requirement to do that so just to give you a couple of statistics from our author survey in 2013 so we we asked um we asked 107 000 widely authors we had about eight and a half thousand that responded um and there were 59% of them said that they had published an open access paper in the previous year um that was over double the number that had answered the same question in 2012 so we really it's really a very small number of authors now that have not published an open access article um these actually these are all the slides full slide set for these survey results are in slide share um and so you there's a lot of information there for anybody who who's interested in it um but interestingly you know i mean the all the traditional factors that authors use in deciding where to publish still exist um and for those that who did publish um open access that the things that they want to to help them make the decision about where to publish are these things here on the left so they're still looking for high impact factor um they want the journal to be well regarded by their peers they're looking for high quality um and then for those who have not published open access there are still some lingering kind of old fashioned reasons i think as to why they're not um i don't think willingness to pay is old fashioned actually but i think some of the things around quality are um you know partly linked perhaps to the the predatory publishers that have emerged um but also just a lingering feeling that maybe open access isn't doesn't have the same quality as subscription journals um so i think you know i mean that this partly may in fact be linked to the fact that we're just publishing a lot more as Pete has has demonstrated and the role of the traditional journal has been to you know kind of judge the novelty of papers as well as just the technical soundness of it and i think for some authors they're still looking for that so we did also um ask where they'd published open access and i was you know i was quite surprised to see the large number that had not paid an article publication charge although i shouldn't have been because in fact if you look in the directory of open access journals there's a large number of the 10 000 journals in there that just don't charge a fee and you can publish free um and the majority of authors are choosing to publish in fully open access journals so this is not just for Wiley this is across all um all journals and so i kind of i know we're going to come on to talking about the future so i didn't want to um i didn't want to sort of is that squashed that um i mean i think what will be interesting is to see we have all the foundation for for a large amount of change i think and open access has driven that and i think um you know there's going to be a lot more and what i'm going to be interested to see is is there going to be something even more radical um some of the things that we're looking at at Wiley are just you know how can we make the whole publication process much faster and much easier and more streamlined for authors and ultimately you could imagine a world in which research results are communicated by blogs or you know something that's very quick and easily updated so i'm looking forward to that part of the discussion and at that point i'll hand over to Marianne oh sorry to um Jennifer thank you so much i think i'm going to take a step back um and ask um a couple of questions that really get us to think about what is open access what are the aims what are the end goals of open access why open originally when our very first or not plus started um what is coming up to you about 11 years ago plus biology it was founded by a set of researchers who are very frustrated that their access to read other people's research was not immediate and what was they were not freely available that it was a particular inefficiency and their own research pursuits so with that note i'd like to think more about efficiencies about how open access kind of fits into this ultimate larger aim we know that efficiencies are quite deep expansive and they go beyond actually just trying to get access to the narrative itself that's a big part of doing your research and it's also a tremendous part of finding the research that you need communicating the research results is also an inefficiency we have heard over and over again that researchers are very much bogged down by these difficult submission systems by the process of authoring when it's a collaborative research project that spans the globe etc that all of these things are keeping them from doing the other work that they're supposed to be doing which may entail continuing with other projects moving on to other projects other also very important parts of scholarly contributions such as doing peer review also very important teaching and fourthly another deep inefficiency that we've been seeing with the conversations we've had with the community really involve researchers struggling to be able to provide evidence of their expertise of their contributions as members of the scholarly community and what I'd like to suggest is that if we think about open access more broadly speaking as an open access framework then perhaps we can start to build towards that future where we where we gain efficiencies across all of these areas so the the open access gold open access that we spoke enough thanks to Rachel and to Pete making articles really immediately available upon publication that is an efficiency for readers right authors excuse me researchers are readers educators are readers policymakers are readers the lay public are readers that there are many people who might be considered part of this reader role another aspect in which we feel that readers can gain efficiencies in accessing not just the narrative but the data underlying the narrative come with data policy data access policies or data access mandates but thinking beyond the article itself the the whole experience of writing this up as I mentioned already there are many things that we can build towards in order to make authoring the the submission of and the packaging up together of the research narrative faster quicker easier and game more efficient and another third area in which we think that efficiencies can be gained really relate to the latter two bullet points especially the last one that I mentioned in that last slide which not only helps funders institutional administrators from those of you who are part of tenure and promotion committees hiring committees but also policymakers at the government level etc is to be able to provide either metrics or qualitative commentary about the research whether it be just of the research narrative itself or associated with any of the other scholarly outputs making that available openly and easily findable and building tools that can allow these individuals to be able to do whatever they need to do in order to get their job done that is a type of efficiency that I think is also a really important part of the open access framework so as I was saying this framework has multiple vectors and just to sum it up access to the research articles we've laid the foundation for it and we're we're continuing to build on that that is a really critical component but just the first step the data evaluation of the content and metrics that provide evidence of contribution I'll just try to quickly move through some of the aspects that relate to PLOS itself the open access piece that much is is pretty obvious since that's why we were started as of march of this year we made a a policy update requiring that all articles submitted to PLOS have data deposited and made publicly available with rare exception those being when there's perhaps patient privacy data there's third party data etc but we do firmly believe especially with PLOS one as a foundational piece of our corpus that if the community and specifically editors and reviewers are checking first and foremost for a methodological soundness how are they going to do this without access to the data and then after publication for the entire community this article was published today I encourage you to go check it out on PLOS biology it's a set of recommendations that the community has offered for directly speaking to publishers this came out of a meeting that a group of people organized last year actually and originally that set of people were it was made up of data center heads policymakers all over the world um they came up with these recommendations this was circulated amongst the community provided feedback and this these are the final recommendations that have come out of these discussions it is the author's hopes in fact though that this kicks off another set of and continued conversations involving publishers involving far more stakeholders across the across the world so do check it out if if you have time I spoke of making the commentary on the research articles also available this is you know a tremendous advance that peer jay has offered as well as other publishers we at PLOS we absolutely support this we do think that not only is the research itself you know the output of valuable work but all of the work that has been done by editors by reviewers etc those labors are lost when they're locked in locked in the vault and never brought along that which is appropriate and relevant etc all of these layers of commentary we do feel when packaged together sensibly can actually be quite an enrichment to the research narrative itself making that open is is is a part of the open framework story and the metrics I'll try to wrap up the metrics surrounding what happens to the articles once they have been published we do feel that this is not only of great interest to the researchers themselves which who traditionally publish forget about it and they just think oh it's out in the world somehow but you know we all know that the reality is that we have to provide evidence of our work not just that we publish the paper or make perhaps a little bit down the line say three to four years later when the community starts writing up their research and citing it but also you know an entire range of other ways in which the community is engaging reusing this research etc these indicators are very powerful beginnings of understanding the re the reach and the reuse of of scholarly research some of the work that we're doing now is to move this effort which has been at least to this point which Pete Benfield alluded to with article level metrics it's been a kind of a cottage effort with a number of smaller publishers but we are working with Crossref to build this out to be an industry wide system making all of these metrics for all published articles that are part of Crossref freely available to everyone and we're building out tools that allow people to be able to easily report off of a single article off of collections of articles etc and the pilot with Crossref that we've begun has we've started off with a small set of sources that track research articles and we've built a little tool called Periscope for those of you interested in actually plumbing into that data it's periscope periscope.io for for the url if you're interested allowing you to be able to get the data visualize it etc but all of this plumbing just to wrap up is really really important it's community infrastructure many of us publishers are working to build that but it really really does not it's not in place basically until something like this looks like this and researchers are able to do their work so um how can you as researchers or institutional administrators um support and um usher in the adoption of the open access framework and establishment of the open access framework all of these things um that really um relate back to the my original slide publish in a no a journal make your um research open access but also make your data available contribute to open peer reviews and demand metrics um open metrics to capture your the reach of your articles and just to sum up you know the open access framework is collective benefits um but if you want to talk in economics terms there's local benefits and then there's global benefits and I do firmly believe that the open access framework provides for both thank you very much Facebook here we go very good um thank you apparently this is one of my standard titles which is uh as Keith indicated I'm here on behalf of force 11 the future of research communications and e-scholarship and many people say well are we in the future already or are we still trying to invent it and so that's where the title comes from so I thought I'd start off by telling you a little bit about force 11 and then also our interest in my own interest as to why it came to force 11 as you heard from my biography I am actually a research scientist an active research scientist um but I think in the sciences in particular um my personal experience really drove me to open access and why I consider it so important um but just as a background force 11 um as he indicated was a is a grassroots organization it was actually founded by a Phil Bourne who recently went off to be director of data sciences at the NIH and a lot of people from publishing computer science cross disciplinary group who came together originally in 2011 at a meeting called beyond the pdf where we realized that there was a lot of pent up frustration in the research community about the current narrowness and inefficiencies in our scholarly publishing pipeline this was driven largely by the biomedical sciences but it was really transdisciplinary because this was being felt throughout people whether they're in the humanities or what have you and we realized that there had been sort of very narrow roles where everybody thought of course that they were the only ones thinking about this but you realize that in your life as a researcher there was a time where you used to spend a lot of time in the library and you might even go to a reference librarian to get to some of those indexes but now of course the only indication you have of your library is by what subscriptions you can get to it very rarely do you actually go in and interact with librarians and you almost never interacted with publishers we found out publishers largely interact with the library librarians because they're the ones who purchased the subscriptions and the sort of new world that we had of networked information was really sort of changing those relationships and groups were coming in contact and roles were being merged that had never been merged before and we realized there really was no organization that allowed all of these different stakeholders to come together not just in the sciences but in the social sciences and the humanities and in industry as well so it's a broad tent organization really designed for anybody who has a stake in moving scholarly communication forward and force 11 started off with a grand vision there was the force 11 manifesto as these organizations often create and it's online and you can read it but it basically was around a set of visions about the impact and the potential impact of technology and information technology to really transform the way that we do and think about things and so I'm not going to go through each one individually but you see number two is we see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication were generally become part of a global universal and explicit network of knowledge and that sounds a lot like kind of you know the internet it sounds like things like semantic web but what it basically says is force 11 because it's a broad tent organization doesn't take a firm stance on open access however you can't have that unless you have access to all of the information and that's really going to be the theme of my talk so as I've come to interact with everybody inside of force 11 I have started to see the problems facing modern science and what have you less in terms of I started off in databases and how you make scientific information available in databases but you started to realize that there's actually what I call a duality to modern scholarship that here to for we have not had and that is the fact that there are humans and their machines who are both consumers of information and whereas before the scholar the human being was the sole integrator in the lifetime of information of reading and interacting and soaking it up that now the agent of synthesis and integration is no longer solely the human it is in fact a human working with and through some sort of automated agent some sort of thing that's going to crunch it and give the information to you you don't flip through books anymore you don't flip through issues of journals you go to search engines you go to google to find your information and this is a huge transformation because our whole scholarly system has been geared towards communicating with other human beings and so a lot of what we do is really about looking to say how are we going to let our colleagues know how are we going to let you know our colleagues know what we have how are we going to be rewarded but it's really clear that at least in the sciences the unit of scholarship is actually very small one of the reasons we think that perhaps open access has not been such an issue in say the humanities is there they publish books and a book is a large unit of scholarship that is meant in many ways to be self-contained the research article especially in biomedicine is small it is a tiny piece of an interconnected network no individual can get all of that information anymore you need a watson or something else that can go across 23 million articles and synthesize that and put it together and i really came to information technology when i was trying to gather enough information to create a model of how a synapse worked and it took a team of people two years going through the literature going back and trying to read these things to extract these little nuggets of information it is meant to be put together so how did i come to open access in particular i actually have both a human and a machine story the human story is one that often many people here may have had and that is my own experience with illness and trying to get information so my parents we cousins and things i get all of these requests all of the time they're they're they're sick but there was a time when i remember my mom was really sick and i had to make decisions i had to make decisions for her healthcare that required me getting to the scientific literature and i was sending all those articles to my brother and they kept coming back how come i have to pay $30 for this how come i have to pay $30 for it and i'm like oh yeah i forgot i have to download the pdf and package and send it to you and i could do that but if you listen to a lot of people who came to open access they say oh but we realize that this is beyond most people's capacity they cannot get to lifesaving research and even getting to it a year after it's published in my view is unacceptable you have to make decisions now you should get that information now my machine-based one though is also a personal story at the very first beyond the pdf i was off to do a sabbatical and something called the spinal muscular atrophy foundation this is a fatal neurodegenerative disease of children and i brought it up at this conference called beyond the pdf which i mentioned which brought everybody together and i said i was about to go off and i would be happy to test all these new tools and they said oh you know what we can we can do all our text mining and we can do all these cool things to help you find a cure for sma and i said that's great and then as i went off you realized immediately something about the scientific corpus that i think is not appreciated it is fragmented and is not fragmented in any orderly way there are 25 million articles total each one of them covering a fragment of the space but each publisher owns a fragment of a particular domain so even in a relatively small corpus like sma there were at least eight or nine publishers and by the time we tried to negotiate all the rights to get all the rights to the content my sabbatical was over and there was nothing we could do and we know that this happens all the time you know here again sma search pub med no access Elsevier oxford embo you know pub med central and so whether we like it or not we're going to have to figure out how to get universal access not to the pdf that we have to extract and and and turn into xml but to the underlying xml so one of my big uh you know hobby horses and the things in my soapbox is we need some way of negotiating universal access to the biomedical literature you should not be able to publish in the biomedical literature unless you make access to this and this was just something that i saw online recently this has been my experience with UCSD many of the libraries when they negotiated their deals with the publishers did not get rights to the xml to be able to do this in fact it's explicitly in their contracts that you cannot use machine based methods to get to the contract and so i thought this was very good where they said our experience led us to realize that text mining rights of full text articles in xml format should routinely be included in the negotiation of the library's licenses but of course i couldn't read the rest of this article because it was in closed access so what can we do if we have this type of access i'm involved in several things in force 11 to try to see how we're going to be able to get these changes and scholarly communication into the hands of the authors and this was a very simple use case which turned out almost it was almost impossible to answer and this was what studies used a particular software tool a particular database a repository an antibody a genetically modified animal and funders would like to know that because they're paying people who build these tools would like to know authors would like to know to troubleshoot their experiments and you'd like to be able to aggregate information around it and we had NIH come to us and say can we answer this question and i said no i said first of all it turns out researchers are still writing for other human beings so they don't put enough identifying information in their papers for you to be able to tell what it is that they use secondly this is in the materials and methods and in pub med at the time you could not get into the materials and methods you could only get to the abstract and so there was no way to get to that information and finally we know that we're dealing with a legacy of how many citation styles right how many citation styles and so we said what we really need is a new system to identify research resources that is uniform across publishers outside of the paywall right and it's somewhat machine processable so we actually started a pilot project because we were in force 11 and we worked with the publishers the librarians the authors we got a group of publishers together and we launched a project that had 30 journals that said we're going to give unique identifiers to antibody software databases and genetically modified animals and the first results are actually in the literature we have 170 articles of these from 29 journals and what's interesting is somehow google gets access to the full text you know we can't get it otherwise but if you type in an RRID as we call them into google you pull up a list of all the articles that actually published with this so I think it's very very important to remember that there are things that we can do now to sort of change it that we have to think of this as an entire corpus and our whole relationship of how we view information getting into and out of has to change and also though that it requires everybody it requires everybody and when you get everybody on board what I've really been pleased to find out in force 11 is how many people working across all these stakeholder groups are really dedicated towards this change so I just want to put in a plug for our meeting which is no longer beyond the PDF because we feel we've actually moved beyond the PDF and is now force 2015 which will be in Oxford in January thank you okay so four presentations it's now your chance the audience either in the room or via Twitter to pose your questions add to the conversation elaborate on any of the points that were made by the speakers it's the first Twitter question I've got I don't want to start these guys know it and it will just take us in a different direction than where we want to go I'm not a technical person and I don't intend to interview but I do have a question by providing open access is there anyone that's going to lose money or are publishers going to lose money will there be any loss of money in any sector by providing open access maybe we will get to that question well I mean I think it's inevitable to a certain extent I mean if you know open access of course has two forms so there's the gold and the green and so you know publishers are generally supporting both so widely support both but I think it's fair to say that you know the proliferation of gold open access journals and open access publishers means that the market has become very competitive and I think that's had the impact of forcing the price down so I think you know the answer to that question is yes and I think it is I think you can put some math on it there's um the STM publishing industry is about 10 billion dollars a year roughly and it publishes about a million journal articles a year roughly and the plus one price is $1,350 per article so if you publish those million articles in plus one it would cost the world 1.3 billion compared to the current 10 billion you know so just in those kind of ballpark numbers you can see there's a potential for a dramatic cost saving which equates to lost revenue for publishers basically another place which is interesting which is one that I think some publishers afford against is some commercial reprint revenue so some publishers some particular publications get a lot of money by reproducing individual journal articles and selling them to a pharmaceutical company for them to take around all the doctors to sell drugs and some publishers make significant amount of money out of that if those articles are published open access you know there's no revenue there for them as well and just to clarify these reprint services are to provide reprints on a per article request basis right I mean because you could easily see that there could be in fact a very valuable surface of aggregating say a set of articles together collecting them and publishing them as a unit right that would be that would be a value added say in a specific subspecialty field that's a good point yeah I sort of see where you're going I mean so with one hand you take and the other hand you give I mean there's there's new opportunities for making revenue potentially yet to be discovered but yeah it's not just a bleak bleak story of lost revenue for the whole sectors of the industry they could be creative and attempt to find new ways to make money off of this open content but it's also true that it is real pressure on universities and researchers to pay for this the author pay charges are a contentious topic and I remember at the last beyond the pdf conference Dave DeRour who was both a funder and also you know in the scholarly communication said I'm very suspicious of these large round numbers that the open access journals seem to be charging it was also clear from that that in the humanities and other places that are not as well funded as science and where they're not used to sort of subsidizing we've always been used to subsidizing publication especially if you come from microscopy you always had to pay for color plates and other sorts of things but it's not a model that a lot of places can act a lot of fields can sustain and there they move then towards these other mechanisms because they have to which again is lost revenue for the publishers but the pressures on the universities with subscription fees and others are also driving this as well one of the players that we haven't really touched on in the landscape is the scholarly society and one of the crude business models there is that they have their flagship journals which are published by typically a commercial publisher and the society receives income which they use to do good things if we move into a disruptive model where that system is changed what is the substitution revenue for the learned society now I did pose that question in one of my previous universities where the vice chancellor said in a forum like this I'm not paying to subsidize societies but it's an interesting dynamic that needs to be thought through well I mean I think that's right actually and in fact I did was involved in a webinar last week which the topic of that was open access in the scholarly societies and I think you know there is many of the societies their entire activities are funded by the publication program and I think you know some of them are very large and have lots of other activities and you know the kind of knock-on effect would probably not be so severe for them but there are I think there's quite a number that would struggle to provide the other activities like the education programs that they provide and the outreach so I think you know particularly in the UK I think there are some smaller societies that are concerned about that. I also think I mean we're talking again about publishing narratives and papers and figures and as Jennifer and others indicated that the world is changing in terms of what is considered scholarly output and though the current model may be overly expensive for even formatting because we can do that ourselves with a good program now I mean the things that we used to add to text maybe aren't so hot but there's a lot of other value you can add to these articles especially in the area of multimedia data software workflows and it may be just like the societies which formed around these journals to help with dissemination very early on it's actually the 350th anniversary of the Royal Society's Journal this year in 2015 but it may be they need to reinvent themselves around these other products because these are still new we don't really know what to do with them we don't really know how to handle them and and right now you need a fairly robust infrastructure to be able to serve them so I think that there are other opportunities that are going to come out as well and the society should really be on the forefront of that. Although more so given that they have such a they for you know their membership is based upon a particular strong community right of researchers in fact you could argue that they know more about their researchers needs than any of the other say stakeholders within the ecosystem publishers included that that is a benefit that I hope that they learn how to exploit. I think though they've been very slow societies you know I've used this phrase before they're addicted to the revenue that they get from commercial publishers for the privilege of publishing their journal and and that's now sort of ingrained in their mindset that this is the only way we can make money and it's so much money to help we possibly replace it with any other revenue source and and then you sort of step out of that sort of myopic society world and you get to your dean there's no inalienable right for a society you're sitting in the UK doing a very worthy topic to get all its funding from libraries you know in the another part of the world I mean libraries do not exist to fund societies the society exists to meet the needs of its members which in the past was publishing a society journal but I think they've sort of lost track because they're they're really addicted to the revenue source they get and it could dry up quite quickly. There's something Ironic about a panel dominated by Brits that most in British societies host in the US but never mind other questions Anna. So two questions and one is more specific than the other but what was from Peter's talk. The first was the posting the preference what is the views there is if you've already put it out and people already haven't if you went to a traditional journal with this it's already been published and then the other thing that I was thinking about and you know it's great for people to be able I'm very pro open access and I'm you know for patients you'll be getting articles that's great but as a coming at it from a researcher's perspective having traditional journals has narrowed how many journals you have to monitor right I have a set of 10 journals maybe that I check regularly and I look at all the papers and take little concepts in them. So the last one is publishing 100,000 papers a year it's great that the information is out there but now and then you add Twitter and blogs to it also how do I tell the weeks from the shaft what is the future light for that for you know we're doing impact control reviewing but somehow we still have to decide what has an impact and take thoughts on how we do that as a person in front of all this information. So the first one's the easiest um so the copyright license that the preference server is under is a cc by license cc by four so it's a regular open access copyright license but your question really was whether other journals are happy to publish papers that have already appeared in print effectively. Yeah so I guess for an open access journal they won't care. But also you know it's now actually becoming almost probably the majority of journals are fine with this concept you can google it if you google Wikipedia journal preprint policy there's a page and for instance I know all of the journals of OUP all of the journals of Elsevier Barth 2 you know all of the journals of spring are obviously with the open access publisher so vast swathes of the literature are now happy to publish papers that previously appeared as a preprint so not so much of an issue anymore and often actually the holdouts tend to be the sort of society publishers that only have one journal that they care about and they're not looking at the bigger picture and they tend to be the ones that I bet widely most of the journals that don't allow that probably are society journals. I don't know the answer to that but I know that there's a big variety of policies we don't have just one single policy because we publish on behalf of so many different partners. So then the second question and it sort of comes back to your point down there we're not publishing this content for people anymore and the ability for a person's personal filtration mechanism which was the journal infrastructure of 25 000 journals and you know if it's good enough for that one we'll publish it if not we'll reject it and that was sort of just a human to mediated filtration system that worked quite well you know back in 300 years ago but now of course we're publishing for machines really so I think the answer to your problem is that you shouldn't as a human expect to only be able to read the top 10 journals in your field and get a full picture of what's going on you you should expect google to read every journal that's been published and and filter it or some service to filter it to give you the stuff that's relevant to you and those tools don't necessarily exist yet very well but they're being developed there's actually a lot of experimentation going on for that kind of thing you know plus good comment on that I'm sure Maryam could as well. Yeah just to add to Pete's comment what I would really like to see and I think many of us as well is the community spurring on innovation in this area of discovery I think that traditionally like you said researchers just went to the top journals say the vanity journals and that was enough but you know my argument is today that should not be enough for you we know that top research and by top you can define it as you will across many vectors traditional or not or more broadly conceived those papers are actually being published and and many many different venues many of them being that the journals represented here today so as a researcher I wouldn't accept the fact that only the specific journals in your field will be will be publishing the type of research that will fit your needs the best because in fact many of your research needs aren't even in the specific subspecialty that you're working in right we are seeing an explosion of interdisciplinary work these fields are growing and and and coming into the world every single day so that then poses alongside the explosion of content now being pushed into the world a huge problem and like we Pete was saying and as well as Maryam you know this is this is going to be at the end of the day it's going to have to be some multi some multiple set of solutions that involve both human curation sorry as well as machine automated recommendations that make use of any set of metadata mashups algorithmic you know cool stuff that has not yet been invented so all of those of you who are tool makers you know there's a lot of opportunity in this area I think you know and your specific question is like what do I do today I mean it is it's interesting you know potentially 10% of literature is in the state and growing and those tools don't yet it's just they haven't yet been invented to the to the quality you need yet so it's a tough one so anas and you're a scientist so but I think it's also true that um I mean I still I still read science in nature I don't read it so much for the articles because I get my articles exclusively through search I read it for the commentary I read it for their news gathering ability it's just like I still read newspapers even though I can pretty much give whatever I want directly from the AP so I think that there's always going to be value added services that people might be willing to pay for they're just not access to the content itself that I think needs to go to this other level that we're talking about but I think as Peter said there's there's a lot of opportunity around this some people's business models will be disrupted but new business models just like in the music industry and other places will come into play and this sort of proxy I think I don't know if you've ever read I'm reinventing discovery by Michael Nielsen but if you haven't it's a really good book to sort of say you know there's our sort of relationship to expertise and others is going to change you need the expertise that you need when you need it you may not need it all the time and this new sort of network platform allows you new tools but also access to expert opinions so every single day I get 10 digests in there from all around the world of things that people think that I think should be important and I read those and that's how I sort of keep up on the on the general news but I don't think that that should be I don't think that should be confused with this with the content itself that's all over the place and I think there was just some article talking about you know that a lot of it is no longer in the vanity journals it is in you know there's some major articles that come out in plus one and the way you will find them it's through search you will not find it through browsing through the table of contents of plus so I think these tools just have to become part of our our purpose and some of them do exist right humans aren't going away as Mary I'm saying you know there may be very prominent people in your field for whom that what they're reading or what they're recommending actually matters quite a lot to your work and may inform it and advance it quite significantly um online community such as Mendele and or any host of scholarly specific social networks are providing that access and I but only see a further development and expansion in that area so as I look at the audience I see a number of familiar faces which suggests there are a lot of librarians information professionals archivists and those who teach those professions sitting in front of us and I wonder what the panel feels about this world where search replaces conventional structure of browsing tables of contents and so what does all of this mean for the future of libraries in the scholarly dissemination practice and what does it mean for training the librarians of tomorrow as I look at she will cuddle who is responsible for that in the city and so I think again that that there are this disruptive roles at least in force 11 most of the libraries that that come into contact here are getting very big into the so-called digital assets of the lot of their university and those digital assets are not just articles and books anymore again their their databases their data um their their software and and other things and I just from my conversations with librarians I mean in the area certainly of curation this has been something that they have traditionally um you know excelled at but also in this idea of collections and I've had a lot of discussion about this because coming from my previous workshop it's like well are we going to store all of the data all of the time everything is everything going to be stored and I think the answer to that is going to be no you know if we will make some decisions about which things need to be carried forward and we will make decisions about which things are valuable now but probably won't be valuable in a few years and looking at you know the big research libraries I mean this is the sorts of decisions that they make and they make it based on not just utility but also on a whole lot of factors that say these are the things we need to invest in to make them better and easier to use so I think again that you know where I see these these right now there's a little tug of war I think in some areas between different factions as to who's problem is data who's problem is the researchers or say that's mine the library said it's ours publishers said it's ours but I think these things will start differentiating out as these other products become more important there's a whole lot of things that need to be evented around them which we just simply don't have we were always limited in our ability to share data it was a physical thing and to the extent that someone could come and visit it or you could ship it someplace you could share it now we can share it on a massive scale instantaneously and we really you know are struggling to figure out how to do that but that there's an opportunity there I think what's going to drive that is things like PLOS and others when we recognize that there's going to be a reward system for it that this is something that you will be able to get credit for we're still early days there but I think that's coming well my my usual answer to that question is that um librarians need to become I guess information facilities information manipulators need to become more data data scientist type of people so I think the role of the librarian play you know going back to the great the great libraries of history you know there's a need to physically and physical building with physical stuff in it and physical librarian to curate that collection and the culture and in the in the sort of great new future of an open access entirely open access literature or entirely digital you know content there's no longer a need for a physical place and and a curation of my collection but there is a need to be able to find you know to direct your patrons to the right places what are the reliable sources how do I find it what does that mean how do I connect it all together in the sort of pizza and I think librarians can have to stop becoming physical and become virtual in that respect I'm sure they already are I mean I've heard that people I mean I was very shocked the last time I went to UCSD library I showed you how long I've been in the building that food and drink were now allowed in the library and I was truly I'm like hey all those years we had to smuggle but it was also I said you know I'm wondering what's driving this and said maybe we're better at detecting the little bugs that you know eat our books but I said I think it was also part of the library reinventing itself because you no longer had to go there necessarily to get the physical materials but it was now a very valuable study space and I've spoken with various librarians I think Boston University and others where they're really realizing as they're creating these information spaces because right now as Jennifer said we we the human is still very much involved in all of this and human insight and value is still very much involved in the and that's what I like about reinventing discovery it was the machines and the people working side by side not one or the other at some point a human was monitoring looking and making choices and some people are really good at that and other people are not so good at it and those people who are really good at it I think will be you know the librarians and things of the future because as you indicated you're monitoring a whole lot of information and any you know sort of thing that you can use to sort of help you get a handle on it help digest large amounts of it I mean I still think collections and curation is is useful but they're digital collections and curation because anytime you make digital information easier to explore and get at and access and understand means what publishers do right it adds value to it and that's really where again I think this is where the creativity needs to come in because digital objects or as I say they're a new beast you know that there's something new the librarians that I've come across I think that there are there is no group more dedicated and more passionate about a very important aspect to this whole thing which the other stakeholders really don't have as much of and that is stewardship stewardship for long-term preservation this desire as well as knowledge of how to curate these things that is this that is a particular specialty that that librarians have which is not as well shared as a skill set in the other you know arenas and I think that that is really really important the type of skills in order to be able to do so in this new world era where everything's a digital object will be quite different and that may be the the shifting needed but I think that some of the underlying philosophy and driving mission I think a lot of it still remains one but when we move from physical objects however two digital things I do think that some aspects of that mission might in fact um no longer be as relevant and and so to the extent that an object can live not just in an institutional repository say at the library um but also in the common say in PubMed Central or as well as the publisher and any host of other digital spaces I think that's something that is a different type of framework that I would like to see librarians then kind of embrace more because I think that that particular framework or vision will only better their ability to be able to provide curation and collection services to their researcher communities. I'm conscious that Peter has to go in about two minutes time to make his car to the airport so I'll pose a question that I'm going to ask the other panelists to address later on and that is are you optimistic about the future of the scholarly communication landscape? It's always optimistic and it's not as closed a question as it sounded but say a few words about it. I am very optimistic because I see you know the open access has been a sort of very single issue battle um getting access to content so that you know you can forward research articles on to your your your relatives or so that you can save subscription money and you don't have to face the serious crisis that librarian world's facing so it's become this single focus issue of just get free access to content and I think what people have realised as they've done this is actually that the benefits of having free access to content are much more than simply in fact you don't have to pay for it anymore it's actually you can do the daily money you can open up new routes of discovery and new ways to mix that stuff together and that's the real power of open access content not the fact that it's free and I think people are now just realising that because there's now a critical sufficiently critical mass of open access content that allows some of these new tools to be built and actually to be viable have some content to work on that we are seeing this little explosion of you know creative innovative companies trying to solve some of these sort of real world problems doing data mining doing discovery tools filtering tools all sorts of things so um yeah I think in my my optimism for the future is the fact that we we've sort of hit this Cambrian explosion of a sort of flowering of experiments that can now happen on the literature that never were possible before so it's going to be great it's just going to be different to the established order of 350 years and that's fine so Pete thank you very much I should make sure you get your guitar I'll do my bagel but thanks good to see you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you so back to the audience yes the panel has contracted right broad agreements on the panel they've only privately a world we're trying to get to but I'm wondering if the panel had one thing that would speed the process along one policy change will change in technology or whatever um in a very complex uh land strength public private and so on I wondered what that thing would be you know that you would like to see happen I mean I'm just thinking about when the some of the major funders change their policy as regards wanting there and the results of the research to be made more open and that did cause a quite a perturbation in the in the overall system are there other things or do we just anticipate a gradual evolution of this sort of shifting alliances and technologies or that's a great question it is a really great question um so I I mean I think one thing that could significantly change speed this up is if the academic reward system were to be changed so I think it's still you know there are certain areas of the world where you have to publish in journals with a certain impact factor and I think that's still fairly universal that you know people are they tend to pick the journals that have the high impact factors that their PI have recommended so I think that could be a bit of a black swan um I mean I think otherwise you know without that then I think it's likely to be a fairly well-paced transition and I think what's happened in Europe is that the um there's been a big push in the UK um in Austria and potentially now in the Netherlands um to for everybody to publish open access but that's not you know that's not a global thing and I think also there's big differences by discipline so a lot you know the biomedical sciences there's more urgency around this um research has to be made available more quickly in other fields the arts you know the humanities it's not not going to take the same path so I think and also the other thing is I think there's likely to be a mixed economy um for quite some time because you know we know for example that nature and science don't offer an open access option um and so you know and I I know the people who work on those journals and they don't intend to either um you know so I so I think for a while you know we will see um a transition but I don't think it would be complete and unless there was the change to the academic reward system I think that would be the single biggest driver Well I was going to be cheeky and say other than making everything CC by makes the question moved but I actually regional that is a very intensive point and and I think that were we to see the death of the journal impact factor um carte blanche across the board for every type of professional advancement decision this means funding decisions for grants this means tender permission and hiring decisions I think that would be that would be well there would be no bigger extrinsic shall I just come back on that though because I think there's a difference between um linking the academic reward system specifically to the impact factor and the death of the impact factor I mean I think you know there hasn't as yet been um anything to replace it that's been better and I think article level metrics and alternative metrics are very useful and interesting but I think there's a lot of factors that go into making the decision about the value of research and you know do you believe the impact factor will die well I think that if we're talking about what if the question posed was what would be the biggest thing that could shake up the system and um more quickly accelerate global open access I think I think to your point well to build on your point you're right and and making a distinction between what you said and my comments um I that that I still do you think it has any value at all sorry just to ask you yeah um do you think it has any value at she was talking about the death of the impact factor um and my question was will do you think it has any value at all so let me be a little bit more precise and saying that when I say the death of the impact factor I mean um I I mean that the death being the exclusive measure of um of quality for decisions that relate to professional advancement and Rachel was saying this may be a black swan I think that may very well be the case um we have spoken to many very prominent funders as well as prominent research institutions administrators provost et cetera saying no no no we would never use that as the exclusive factor um and if we were to take them at their word that's fine um that you know the evidence still stands that you know people still talk about it whether or not we live in a world where it's just the researchers who think this is the case or whether or not um there are in fact still decision makers who are incorporating that the general impact factor um exclusively or in a very significant way um in these decisions then I think and um we would all be better off with that if we were to be able to provide more comprehensive qualitative portfolios that speak to um broader dimensions of of of scholarly contribution so as a scholar and advocate so I just came out of my departmental review meeting and of course high impact journal high impact journals but I was very pleased that our department did take a broader view of it and understanding that for some um for some fields of study the high impact journals we traditionally think the high impact journals are not the best place to publish and so they don't publish and so it did they did take a broader view and I did read one article that suggests actually that in the United States the review boards are more considering of many other factors whereas in Europe and especially in developing countries they're very much focused on just the impact of the journal but in in the world of of sort of this larger view of new forms of scholarly communication basically I agree with Rachel it always comes down to incentives I mean it is the sole thing that that people constantly come back to and um and that incentive is going to be at the level of the scholar the scholar controls the system controls everything they control the administration they control the funders they control the journals right because everybody comes through in the sciences the academic labs and that's the only way you get into the system you do not come in from the outside and that is controlled generally by older more powerful scientists who this is all still a very new world to them and I just was at a meeting in washington and somebody very proudly said that she goes I just go out of my way never to read a blog and she was very proud of the fact that she never read any blogs and so it's like well okay um so I really feel that if there's going to be something that would be disruptive it is people successfully making the case for these other forms of scholarly products as should counting and to do that the thing that I am pushing which verse 11 a lot of groups are pushing is a system of data citation um that is uh and software citation that is tractable because once we have that what I've heard from funding agencies is that and journals is there's no way to verify whether anybody has done anything there's no way to verify whether they've put their data out and so they can put all these policies they want but until you have a tool that says oh look no you didn't right they're not going to be able to enforce any of this and so that's what I feel we're working really hard on this system of citation that is machine processable so that we can help affect this change but in the humanities you could have this is a photograph of me standing over this manuscript I'm wondering if David Cowher wants to respond to that I know you've been raising your hand Can we engage in the social sciences and humanists to help increase uptake of open access publishing? Do you have any ideas please? I mean I think it will be a slow and organic growth anyway I mean it is already happening that you know the number of articles that we publish in those disciplines is growing faster the growth rate is faster than life and health so I think you know I think it will happen how do we speed it up I mean there's just there's just not the funding really to support the gold open access and I think you know people do self archive that content to make it freely available but most journals tend to have longer embargo periods for that content so I don't have the answer actually unfortunately but I could speculate as to a coalition of humanities funding agencies who have the national endowment for the humanities and the British academy and others coalescing in the way that perhaps you know that the elife model in the life sciences has constructed a high prestige open access journal which is free for authors there is no at the stage no apc and that may drive the momentum the trouble is I think but I'm not an expert in the field can you create a mega humanities journal or are the disciplinary differences so nuanced that you'd need at the very simple level a history journal and English journal and so on I have no idea I've welcome your thoughts you've also got a problem on the monograph problem in a sense but I mean the way that humanities work the way people think and research is much more extensive it's bigger it's bigger it's bigger units it's more complex more but I think it's better than just a dancing village right instead of those little small units that's why I think it's been so essential and I mean I've heard rumblings more rumblings in the humanities and I think at some point it's going to come down also to consumer behavior I mean the number of times now where I don't read an article because I simply can't get it but I read an article where because I can't get it I think those metrics are also going to start to have an impact once you have the data that says it but it's open access people read it if it's not open access you know your readership goes down so I don't know I mean we're science in nature are the two journals you know Sal and Neuron that can in our fields they can do whatever they want and people are still going to go into them because they're you know considered so prestigious that people will still publish in them but if you're not dominated by a few of those big journals then there's really less reason to and then once we start going to a search base this is a set of a journal base then it's going to be really can I get to your information to act on it and if I can't then too bad and you know I've not seen that funding pressures inside the library I mean UCSD notes that there are several journals published at UCSD which the UCSD library does not have because they don't buy them anymore and we're like I'm sorry but that's just stupid right it's ridiculous and you start to get these sort of absurdities that people will start to say no I'm sorry right these things should all be open access at some level now maybe and I don't you know mean this to me but you know it may be again that the urgency and so the embargo periods may be not as deleterious in the humanities that you can wait six months or a year to get ahold of this I know the history society wanted seven years for dissertations which seemed rather excessive to me um but I think the demand really is going to have to come from the consumers which right now are us to say I'm going to be able to get this stuff so one thing that occurs to me is that the humanities unlike science is not necessarily as global so that sort of thinking about how these things coalesce are different in science simply because language plays a role in humanities when you think about um national culture not national cultures but sort of language groups and so forth that sort of humanities in there is going to be act exactly the same way as the life of science is right stem does and I think that might also have a bearing on the rapidity with which someone might or in fact if they were thinking about it might actually call for a faster migration yeah either way so I mean I've been talking about the humanities associated with the monographs but uh I belong to a society where the main journal the flagship journal actually publishes something like 65 percent advanced grad students and system professors because the monograph becomes a platform for the mature scholar but oftentimes it's the young scholar who goes to the journals first in order to build some reputation to get some reputation on publishers and the problem with open access there is that you know the other one is longable people in the society but they're the one exactly to you know I mean ask to you know pay the price to get the reach for publication if it is open access and we really um represent you know people will say well where are we going to get the money again we're happy that publisher is giving us this money and you would say well we need to be creating the further sources but nobody seems to know of the humanities or whatever sources we're going to go to so I'm going to make a point which will not completely satisfy um or cover the how large and complicated the issues that you've raised are but just to say that um there is another aspect um which is training and education that we may that may have a bearing even more so with the humanities so if in fact um and and I'll take it as true that the majority of research articles published are by have been authored in the humanities by um those in training or young professors in your society then they are perhaps more vulnerable in that they are working up to a monograph that does take many years and quite a lot of time that said they had to build their CV and to the extent that any of these research articles are published open access I would find it hard to believe that that would not make the research articles more widely circulated for training incorporated into curricula et cetera if we can also then capture that as a mechanism by which you know they can be credited et cetera that will then help bolster um their expertise area um as well as the reputation I mean two of the most popular talks at beyond the pdf came from humanists that Kathleen Fitzpatrick gave her talk about planned obsolescence and again it you know it showed that when you did go out there and you solicited feedback and what have you and did this you know through an open platform it was actually a tremendous benefit to her in getting that sort of the preprint server type of a thing so I you know I think that um a lot of times we hear from the older scientists that they're trying to protect the younger scientists that they're trying to protect them and the system that we have developed and that's why I think it is incumbent upon us to start to change that so that we don't you know that we don't we don't fail to take advantage of the fact that they are willing and able to operate in different ways it's only for them doing that for the system that we are maintaining up here that causes them harm I remember about 20 years ago when the health service system in the uk was undergoing poplucina's radical change in the training process when junior doctors were being protected by being asked to work fewer hours each week and the older consultants were single we worked 120 hours a week when we were in training and we didn't kill that many people so let's just keep it going it's good for the young doctors and eventually sense prevailed I'm conscious that we are at the end of our time so I will post that that final question that I did to Pete to each of our panellists in turn starting with Rachel are you optimistic um I well I am because I think it's I you know I think it's exciting I've worked in publishing for about 20 years I was at nature before Wiley for quite some time and it's a really it's a period of rapid change and it means that we have to be creative and it means that we have to find new ways to do things and um that that gives you know I find that very exciting I am as well um as evidence not only by Plasys growth but as as well as all of the other new journals coming into being they're mostly open access almost entirely open access but um to a point made earlier by Marian we're seeing an explosion of what a research object is or a scholarly output is at this moment it's not just the narrative itself it's the data it's the software it they are reviews associated with the research article their versions revisions to the research article in some cases and I think that if we build towards a network an ecosystem information ecosystem where all of these can be connected can be made visible to other researchers for discovery made visible to decision makers in order to be able to provide evidence for contribution I think we'll be in a very different universe hopefully very quickly very good so when I hang out with my first 11 friends I'm always very optimistic sometimes when I go back into the laboratory I get very cynical but I'd say over the last year that is shifting a bit and I think that part of the optimism is actually to to the real systemic problems we have in biomedical research and that the things that we had been talking about just a sort of fringe elements of people who are dissatisfied are now being discussed at the very highest level you know this need to be able to incorporate other forms of scholarly output the need that all of the data behind a scientific experiment be made open even just for level for transparency and to recover all that dark data these are now coming in the Lancet they're coming in big journals and I'm hearing it discussed at the highest levels of government and some major researchers who are very very um you know they're the experts at the current system at the brain initiative meetings the number of people that said whatever gets done has to be open it has to be made open and has to be made available I'd not heard that before right I'd not heard it at that level so I think we can't be anything but optimistic and this is being governed partially by crisis economic and also in reproducibility but partly because people are very slowly I think changing their relationship to data and changing their relationship to information I think the advent of clouds remote servers the idea that you should be able to get anything anywhere at any time was never the case right for many many years and even in the early days of distributed systems like grids people were very distrustful of it but now everybody wants their stuff in the cloud because you just want to be able to beam it down when you need it and really that's what openness is thank you sounds like we have a lot to be optimistic about thank you all for coming please join me in thanking our people