 Welcome, everybody, to a presentation on Force 11, the future of research communications and e-scholarship. My name's Mary M. Martone. I'm currently the executive director of Force 11. Now I have to give you the bad news. You no doubt have been hearing of many people whose flights have been fogged in and are not able to actually get here. And unfortunately, that is true of Anita, who is currently up in the air and is supposed to get an 11 this morning, but is due to land at 6.15 or 6.30. This was envisioned and was planned up until a few hours ago as a joint presentation, which has a merge set of slides. So I'm going to do the best I can to go through Anita's slides. We approach this from very different angles, me from the research scholar angle and her from a technology developer, but also from inside the publishing domain Elsevier. So I may not do her slides exactly successfully, but both of us agreed. We very much wanted this to be an interactive session. And we wanted to make sure that we had left a lot of time at the end for discussion and for people to bring up their needs. Because as you'll see, the purpose of Force 11 is really to provide the force or focus to a lot of the different activities that are going on amongst all the different communities and to provide mechanisms, matchmaking mechanisms in particular where people who are working in this domain and need to reach out to others who are working in other areas that they have a platform and a forum for doing so. So as I said, I can't replace Anita, but I will do the best I can. So essentially, we start off with our usual and waviness and that science or scholarship in general is becoming more distributed. I don't think that that will be a surprise to anybody, but there's a lot of really interesting things that are going on. And it always helps to set the context, both Anita and I really come out of the science domain. Force 11, however, is for everyone, despite the fact that I usually slip and say science instead of scholarship, that's not what we intend. It's clear we need to communicate better. That was true even before the revolution in networks and networking technology, but now we can actually communicate better. And so this really is about how we affect this sort of cultural change. A lot of the work that I'm talking about actually started at a conference that was held at the University of California, San Diego, UCSD, back in 2011 called Beyond the PDF. And we actually are gearing up and planning for Beyond the PDF too. So I want to make sure that I think a lot of people here are already members of Force 11, but I hope a lot of us will join us there because it really was a pivotal conference in terms, I think, of finally bringing together all the different people who thought they were crying in the wilderness about the fact that there needed to be change and things needed to start happening faster. So a direct outgrowth of that was Force 11. And then as I said at the beginning, Hanita and I really wanted to leave a lot of time for saying here's what our plans are and call for comments. So Hanita has these wonderful slides about the world of data. And I think this was one that even I didn't know about my background is in neuroscience, but the idea that we can generate data on an unforeseen scale and anything can generate data, of course, is now a reality. And we have an internet of things. Anything can now be self-reporting. There are sensors you can put on plants and plants can just pour out data, data, data, data. So whereas before, we very rarely got access to the primary data itself, we almost always got access to an encapsulation or a narrative about that data or description of the data because of the medium we have. We now of course are able to get data from almost anything and things that never before could put out things, have a voice on the social web. And this really has been egalitarian and open to everybody. Larry Smarr who's the director of the building where I have my offices, the California Institute of Advanced Telecommunications and Technology makes a lot of data. He's part of a movement called the Quantified Cell. This of course is more than I myself would care to do about myself. However, he actually tracks all of his information and he actually eats his own dog food and he puts it all out there on the web. He puts his colon up in 3D in the Cal ID case. But what was actually interesting is for once, he's actually starting to see some payoff and he had a diverticulitis attack once and his three-dimensional colon in the virtual reality cave showed a little pink that really wasn't apparent from the two-dimensional x-ray and this gastroenterologist was able to see that. And he's also starting to do what a lot of people have started to do who are just monitoring themselves all the time, things that you would never make correlations with before all of a sudden they're starting to make sense. You may have heard about the Stanford researcher who constantly micro-raised himself and had a huge spike in blood sugar, like a huge diabetic, almost attack and he had just come off of an attack of influenza and so it suggested the sort of very interesting things were actually happening of which we don't know about but this world of data is out there. And this is apparently an entire movement, the Quantified Cell people. And that's the nice thing about the web is it kind of gives a focal point and a voice to a lot of people who didn't have them before and almost anybody can meet up on the web and actually do things and bring together a movement. As an aside, because again these are all Anita's slides, in sort of thinking about why is it that science has been so slow to adopt this medium, I actually think it's because we already have a medium. We already have people who are willing to pay for us to come to these conferences. We have people who are willing to pay us to put our work in the public domain. We have publishers who are willing to take our data and put there but actually most people out there don't have that sort of medium. Nobody's willing to pay them to communicate and so now that they had a medium where they could, they've embraced it, whereas we've shied away from it which is kind of interesting and this really is the point of our existence as scholars. We are supposed to be producing work to be shared and referenced by others. And who's using this data? I think there's two tremendous revolutions that have gone on. Not only do we have access to data and do we have algorithms and things that can look at this data, but of course the web also brings people together and allows people to use your data in ways that you had never envisioned that they would use it before. So this was I think one of these spectacular successes of the Intel Science Fair or Google Science Fair winner where she was able to as a high school student develop a cloud-based neural network that can actually assess tissue sections and diagnose breast cancer much better than expert networks. She was able to do this in the cloud using Google's app engine, basically not having to spend all that much because she had access to all of these things and also because she did do it in Google's cloud engine it can be accessed by any cloud other system, any other medical system everywhere. And this idea that there are people who are not only producing data but that there are people outside the domain of normal scholarship who are consuming this data and actually working with it and publishing it, again is another one of these revolutions. Scholars are a little unhappy about that if you ask a lot of people one of the reasons that they don't want to share their data is they're sort of afraid that people are going to come in and misuse it. You might point out to them that really nothing stopping them from doing that now reading some synopsis of your paper. I mean you can cite papers incorrectly all the time. There's nothing stopping you but that in fact this is the power of it. You're bringing millions and millions of minds and people who normally would not be seeing your data are seeing your data and that I think can be a tremendous force for good. So Mark Wilkinson is involved in a project where sort of a semantic web project again where they're trying to get nano publications and other forms of publications are trying to get people to put their data out there so that it's linked and networked and so that you can actually use this data to predict interesting biological facts. In this case they're looking at putative interactions between pathways and species X but the important point is that this is running over data on the web that he neither created nor knew about and that these things could be done just because the data are out there and this is potentially very powerful again. This is also something that makes scientists uncomfortable because these things are not verifiable and they're not sort of tied to this hedging that scientists like to do about everything that they say but nonetheless scientists do this all the time. They just do it at a tremendously slow pace using manual efforts over the course of their careers and even though I don't think anything has yet surpassed the human brain in terms of its capacity to integrate information and I'm also now at an age where I know that a lot of information gets quickly forgotten as other things get in there. So we have a finite capacity and these machines of course are a useful adjunct but nobody is producing data in a way that allows that to happen very readily. So I actually believe instead of corrupting science this is actually going to expose as it had started to do already some of the problems in science is hard and you wanna get those problems out and discovered as quickly as possible. You do not wanna suppress them and gloss them over and paper them over in narratives which are essentially opaque and inaccessible. So I think the web by and large is an extremely powerful medium. So when we say that science is becoming distributed and Anita and I disagreed about this it's like well everything is becoming distributed and actually everything already was distributed it's actually coming together again in one sense. We have data and we have tools and we have thoughts but it is true that we are bringing more people and more things to bear on these questions than we've never been able to before. That's very nice. So there's data. So what can we say about data? Data is king. I just came from the presentation on the research data alliance and people recognize that this really in my view is the fundamental revolution. I deal a lot with scientific data. We just never had anything before again where we could get access to this data where we could share this data. Data didn't suddenly become messy and imperfect data or always messy and imperfect. We just never could get at them so we didn't know what to do with them. One of my favorite arguments against large scale data sharing is well nobody's guaranteeing the longevity of this data. There's no sustainability plans for databases and things and I said so we throw it all away now so the fact that we could actually save it for a few years and use it is not a preferable alternative and also if this data does go away science hasn't collapsed after a certain amount of time that information is subtracted and covered but we now know that data can have a much more primary role and we also know that human beings love to tell stories I believe as a neuroscientist that's basically what we do we communicate in stories and we tell stories about our data and we are capable of great flights of insight on very messy data. We are also capable of completely confabulating falsehoods on data as well. There's all kinds of expectation biases and other sorts of biases. So we should be communicating in the things that we produce. We should be communicating in the data and layer our stories on top of them and not the other way around. But we all know anybody who tries to actually use data is that it's messy. Most people who are producing data are not data scientists they don't know about structuring information they don't know about annotation of information they don't even know about data types or data forms. We have seen examples in my own projects where somebody says I shared my data and they'll take a picture of an Excel spreadsheet and they'll give you a JPEG of an Excel spreadsheet and they'll say here's my data. We're like well not exactly it's not actionable they're like what do you need? I can see the numbers it's like yes but a computer can't get at those numbers and these choices that you make make a lot of difference but people don't know about them. Needs to say where it comes from. We need to know where the data are produced we need the provenance we need the methods. Whether we like it or not science and scholarship is a perceived economy and where data comes from is very important not only to our careers but also trusting the source. There are some sources we're going to trust more than other sources and we need to know where it comes from so that we can make those types of attribution. This is of course a big thing with the internet and with things like blogs and things that are not peer reviewed but already we can see that we're adopting some of these things. If it's a blog that comes from my colleague I trust it if it's somebody I don't know maybe I don't trust it but when we have the provenance we can make those determinations. Sensitive to privacy not everybody's like a flurry smart and once all their stuff out there we are dealing with sensitive human health information and not everything is meant to be shared and we're still working through the issues about data scooping and primacy and angle finger rules and all these other sorts of things. The meritocracy of science is built up over the course of the years it's not going to go away soon so anything that we do with data we certainly have to understand that not everything is meant to be shared all the time and it needs to know how it's used. I think what that means is that it needs to know again as it gets transformed you should be able to track where it's going what was done to it and be able to again see these workflows in these chains as they go along the process because very rarely is it raw data it is almost always transformed in some way. Okay, tools, tools rule, it's quite clear that the thing that allowed the data revolution to happen was not that we could page through textbook after textbook after textbook with gene sequences or other things but that we had algorithmic tools and other things that could go and access that data and do something with it. We've seen with the app revolution that tools can be made by everyone and made in some cases a lot better than the people who produce the data. When I was on the sabbatical in New York City I was in the subway and the MTA had a big sign up there saying we think you should have better applications for dealing with the subway data so we turned it over to the people who know how to build those we didn't try to do it ourselves and we have 10,000 little apps that let us look at subway maps because we turned it over. Tools are open and free well many of them are not all of them are but certainly enough of them are that if you wanna go out and do something significant there's virtually nothing that you can't find something where somebody contributed and allowed you to get your work up and going even if you still had pay models of tools that might be better documented. Tools should know where the data lives. We're certainly seeing that with some of these very large data sets that shipping the data to the tools is not always the best idea sometimes shipping the tools to the data is gonna have to be necessary. Certainly with the ability of plants and everything else to generate terabytes and petabytes and petabytes of data we can't be moving that over these networks all the time and we need to make sure that we can match the computational tools with where the data are. They will need to be able to understand data privacy, ownership, trustworthiness and provenance as in the legal session this morning where they were talking about licenses and right now licenses again are produced so that human beings understand what they mean but that's the tools that actually use them that don't necessarily understand them but we certainly see in other industries even keys and other things where they won't copy one key but they can copy another that these things can start to be built into the data themselves so we don't need to worry so much about keeping track of reams and reams and reams of legal documents. So this is the question and this of course is what bothers a lot of my scientific colleagues that says well if I put all my data out there and I put all my tools out there what am I doing there and what am I going to do because we sell our expertise and we sell our knowledge and we sell our sort of exclusive access to a lot of these things but in fact I think those of us who are in the biomedical domain recognize that really generating the data which used to be such a large part of our skill set being able to go in and take very beautiful microscopy images for example now we press a button and the microscope does all that for us. We can generate huge amounts of data sets with the metabolomes of the guts and we can sequence entire animals and so really the best science is not going to be about who generates the best data or the best tools but what is interesting, what is important and increasingly what impact does this have? Why are the taxpayers paying for it? So I think there's still going to be plenty for the scientists to do even when all of this changes but I think it's actually going to deliver things to the scientists which allow them to ask much more powerful questions and get rid of some of that extreme reductionism which seems to characterize science in increasing amounts. So what about from the publishing side? Well yes the scientists are producing lots of things and things are starting to move and get out there but the science publishing itself also needs to be distributed. For too long the containers that we've had for merit advancement, the currency that we use in science and in scholarship is a very large so in science it's the peer reviewed journal article in The Humanities it's a book that's published by the University Press. Please take a tremendous amount of time to produce. They ironically lock the information in the structure that is not machine processable. It is not the optimal vehicle for a lot of the types of work that we produce especially in science we're not going to spend months and months and months writing up negative results even though there's a journal that will publish them because we would rather publish our important results. Makes more sense that we should have more ways of being able to publish these things and publish them in the appropriate unit for whatever the type of scholarship that is available. And metadata is very important to that because if we're going to in fact start to reduce the sizes into little nuggets we need to make sure that those little nuggets can be connected together in some reasonable way. There are tools that do this and those that produce these workflow tools just ensure to all of us that these are easy to use and foolproof but in fact we know that that's not true in most cases but the tools will get better that is there were the instruments that we use our laboratories everything we'll get smarter in capturing what it is that we do right now I would say that that's not true but this is something that's very desirable because we want to be able to capture all of this. We want to be able to write it in a shared space again this is a very very different model than we typically have done there are tools like Google Docs now which people are using and are very very powerful but still Nathan they still crash if you've got to put a lot of figures in they don't work very very well but it's a very different experience the first time you pull up a Google Doc and start to write collaboratively over this incessant shipping back and forth documents and trying to figure out who made what changes at what particular time tremendous loss of productivity and inefficient. Invite reviews. When I've been going through blogs for 4th 11th I thought one of the most interesting blogs that I read was really talking about the difference between the open source software community and scholars in general and saying everybody thinks that the open source community is sort of a model because you put your code out there everybody sort of understand that there's gonna be bugs in it and people contribute and they fix your bugs and they tell you about their bugs and everybody's happy because they're like I put this thing out there and people started to join in. In scholarship if you put something out there and people start pointing out the flaws in the bugs it's gonna tack on your reputation as a scholar and in fact you are taught very early on not to let anything out there until it is perfectly encapsulated and walled off from all sorts of criticisms so instead of inviting your criticism and inviting review you actually view that as a hostile act and so consequently when you look people say well we have comments on journal articles nobody ever uses them like of course they don't use them because these are the same people that you're gonna review their paper so I said it's an entirely different mindset than you have in the open source community but yet how powerful would it be? For example as one journal editor made a recommendation if we put our clinical trial protocols out there for comment before we spent $30 million doing a clinical trial and not afterwards when everybody can find the flaws it would just make a whole lot of sense but this is something that has to obviously change culturally so here we go this sort of agile programming and then you get all these nifty apps and so on and so forth so I think everybody agrees that the networks, technology, tools offer us a tremendous opportunity for change but the question always is how do you get started? Our entire week as I said have a system for communicating we have established channels over which this communication happens we know how it's going to happen we control it we have a meritocracy that is based at least in science on being paid to do research paying publishers to publish that research and buying back our research and for whatever stupid reason we bought into this and this is our system and it exists we also peer review for nothing and we do all kinds of things for nothing and yet we can no longer get access to our own scholarship we can't freely share our scholarship it's kind of ridiculous if you think about it so we all recognize that there are things that we need the first thing everybody starts talking about is standards, we need standards we need to be able to exchange information I was told by somebody it may be even somebody in this room whom I interviewed for force 11 that when you go back to the history of scholarly communications I think is fascinating it took 100 years to invent page numbers so standards do emerge and they do come out over time it is very hard to sort of prescribe them generally they come in when you're trying to do something useful we certainly see in technology that we have all kinds of things that don't sort of interoperate as well as they should but over time they do come together what I find in the scholarship world though is that most people who are producing their little scientific nugget only look at their scientific nugget and at no point other than their introduction and their conclusions did they ever think that this is supposed to be plugged in or fit into a larger infrastructure or a larger peak so I don't believe that the standards in all cases are just well here's a protocol to do this or here's a protocol to do that but I remember being in a large project where they were trying to decide how to orient MRI scans for mice versus humans and one guy said let's just do it opposite and I said why would you want to do that and he's like just because and I'm like you know what sort of a mess you're gonna get into if the left hemisphere is on one side of a scan in a human and it's on a different side in a rodent but it was just an arbitrary decision that you can see we get locked in why because to them it didn't matter anything you needed was gonna be right in front of you it was never meant to be accessed by anybody but an expert who was trained specifically to look at the data so I think the mindset that you are producing these things to be locked into this global network is just not something that permeates scholarship very well. Workflow tools. Obviously we need them that work for all of science and that they're scalable safe and user friendly. That's actually a fairly high bar to reach you know anytime you do anything which disrupts from you thinking freely but have to sit there and record and struggle it's difficult but still we can see from plants tweeting and the quantifiable self the ability of things to sort of capture what we are doing is really going to be changing over the next few years and we certainly think that laboratories and the mechanisms of scholarship should be doing a lot of this work for us and we shouldn't have to do it ourselves. Semantic linked data centering authoring annotation and editing environment. I think again this is one of the key things that you see percolating throughout conferences like this all the time. This idea that these are not self contained things but that things are linkable. It's the thing that the web taught us you click on something and you link to something else and you link to something else and you link to something else but because the things we do are so idiosyncratic to each domain it's been very very difficult to do and again when you ask the scientists well why aren't you using URIs why aren't you using unique identifiers sort of like never even think about it they don't think about it because it's just not even within their purview. Publishing systems that run as application servers you can tell this comes from Anita Elsevier but again it's not just that the scientists have to change and the mechanisms that we know publishing itself is going to be disrupted and they also have to think differently about how they're serving the information. And social change. I think this is the biggest one. A lot of the technology and things that we need it's not perfect but it's there but those of us who still work in the laboratory and work in the domains and aren't it's out there drinking the Kool-Aid of these sorts of types of conferences know that this is really going to be the hardest nut to crack because the system just works very well and that the people who fund scholarship come from the ranks of scholars the people who review scholarship come from the ranks of scholars the people who publish scholarship come from the ranks of scholars so it's all working very well and we all know how that's all going to work and when you try to point out that things don't work as well as they should they start to hem and ha and go well you know this works pretty well. However, and this didn't make it into my slide set but if I'd known I needed one coming I would have put it in here. I think the fly in the ointment is that at least in science reproducibility is under major attack and many of you who are in science probably have seen some of the articles that are coming out about what a poor job scientists do in reporting their data reporting all of their data and the study that came out by Amgen that was published in Nature where they could not replicate 75% of major cancer studies major cancer biology studies that were published in the top high impact journal has percolated through almost everything and so scientists whereas before they could defend the status quo saying no we're protecting the brand we're doing the best science we can pull up study after study after study after study that says maybe not okay maybe not maybe you're not doing the best science so I actually think it's becoming increasingly more difficult for them to defend the way we do things now when it's so clear that the majority of what we do cannot be used or repeated. So what were we doing about it? Well as I said the sort of transformational event in the beyond in fourth 11 was this conference that Phil Bourne who was one of the founders of CLOS who's at UCSD and needed to board organized in San Diego that's how I came into contact with them although I knew Phil from this is a colleague at UCSD and it brought together again all the people who are working in building all kinds of tools it sort of I think opened up a world to many of us that we just had no idea it was even out there everybody who's ever had a thought of one day going you know we all ought to use the same vocabulary thinks they're the only one who's ever thought about it and that nobody's sort of working on it or you know we need another unique identifier I mean that's what we need and you get like 50 of them but when we brought everybody together I was quite sure there was a lot of really good work that was going on and that there was a community that was interesting in connecting and there were things that were discussed like new formats for the research paper and tools for creating, reviewing, assessing connecting workflows new metrics for success new business models with a big gigantic question mark there were some who griped that it basically became a bully platform for those pushing for open access as usual with these types of conferences a lot of discussion, a lot of energy and then very little, right because then you have to go through and generate the grants and generate collaborations and so several years later you come back and you actually have something and we thought that really didn't work very well because again we keep going to these things we keep hearing from the same people there are multiple groups that are talking about these different things but there has been a lack of large scale change most of the arguments we're all familiar with well I can't get funded for that again most of our current existing platforms everybody's perfectly happy with the way things work the publishers will never agree to that we certainly know that these are big barriers and when it comes to open access and flocking copyright nobody's willing to take on the publishers for the most part that sort of is changing a little bit but still there and finally the reward system is not just set up that way this is what I hear over and over and over again why should I do this, why should I do that sometimes I say because you're paid to but most of the time I'm like listen I understand you know I'm a scholar too I go through promotion committees as well so there was a follow up to the beyond the PDF the beyond the PDF had about a hundred people and a smaller group of people got together in gosh tool for a more focused workshop there was about 40 of them I was invited to it but I was not able to make it at the time and from this they came up with something called the manifesto and recoin the organization the future of research communications and e-scholarship it started as just the future of research communications for fork and then somebody added an E and it became force and because it was held in 2011 it became fourth 11 my first job as executive director was to decide whether we should become forced to fall or whether we should stay at force 11 but I kind of like force 11 so I stuck with it it sounds very science fiction so they created a manifesto that I think a lot of the things again back in 2011 seemed quite revolutionary and what have you but I've subsequently learned are pretty much ideas that are floating all over there but at least it serves to sort of bring all these together in one document and again existing forms needlessly limit inhibit and undermine effective knowledge transfer there's no doubt about that the very helpful suggestion is we should rethink those we should rethink the unit and form of scholarly publications like yeah okay I'll do that improved knowledge dissemination claims are hard to verify tension between commercial publishing and the provision of access to scholarly information but alternatively one of the things I like about this group is that the publishers are recognized as stakeholders in this too their models, their mode, their livelihood is under attack equally well and it's not just that the internet is allowing everybody to publish but it's also in times of budget cuts and lean budgets libraries don't have the money anymore to actually support a lot of these things and they need to figure out what's going on you know and they need to figure out what they're gonna do next as well current academic assessment models don't adequately measure the merit of scholars and their work over the full breath I think we all know this but just like I've come to believe that you know the story is one of the major things that define humans the other is a love of numbers to quantify things that can't be quantified just so that they can compare things and feel pretty good about the fact that this journal is a five and this is a 5.2 impact factor therefore it must be better even though nobody knows what any of these things mean but it's their decimal point so there's a lot of work and discussion that went on to say everybody's got a stake and seeing that information is available but everybody has to figure out who's gonna pay for it and the traditional models we've had of paying for it where we tie access to information to property taxes or tuition at a university don't work in a globally networked world it's not tied to geography anymore so who's gonna pay for it if the government's gonna get out of infrastructure well then who is gonna pay for it but somebody's gonna have to pay for it because it's certainly not free and finally we recognize that if we don't bring the scholars into this discussion right from the beginning we're never gonna get anywhere because academic careers are very long people stay in their jobs for 50 some odd years and I think we're in an interesting time where the people who are very adept at using the technology are very young the people who actually could afford to be adventuresome in exploring some of these are very old and there's a disconnect there and I think we need to be able to bridge it so when I saw and they were talking about getting an executive director I at my stage in my career said you know this is kind of interesting I could take another microscopic image I could publish another scientific paper but I'm just adding to the brickyard of science and my bricks are just laying there so how is it that we're going to affect change and I actually thought that this was a really interesting opportunity because I do think that we can catalyze it you know biological systems are all about enzymes catalyzing things that would happen very slowly otherwise and I actually think for this it's sort of a shared group moving forward to say how are we actually gonna do this there's a lot of good work going on and we avoid some of the redundancy and we shortcut some of the things that would normally play out over several years so science can move forward so 4th 11 was officially commissioned it's a community of scholars, librarians, archivists, publishers, research funders it really is an organic grassroots community effort really was these different groups of people getting together and realizing that there was no one place where all of these discussions were going on there were plenty of places where parts of the discussion were going on the manifesto was a start that summarized a number of key problems but we really wanted to also make sure that we could create a more enduring platform for some of these things to happen that were not just PDF files because clearly we're supposed to be going on beyond the PDF so Phil Bourne was able to get some funding from the Sloan Foundation to take this to the next step and again the idea of 4th 11 is that there are many stakeholders they need to collaborate clearly if I see one thing looking over a global landscape of resources that nobody ever has enough money to do everything that they want where they're going to have to join forces it happens in industry it's going to have to happen in scholarship we don't think that we're in a position necessarily where we can prescribe technology certainly 4th 11 doesn't have a budget to develop technology but there's so many places out there where there's coordinated development where again if people could join forces they would do a lot better than if they went off on their own we monitor and make sure that we can be an advocate so if there's opportunities for people to put in workshops if there's places where these things can be done communities that are just starting to think about these things 4th 11 is developing materials and other things I just completed the 4th 11 manifesto in slides so that people can use these if they're going out there into the community to make people aware and we know that money makes the world go around so there will be more proposals than things that have to develop but a lot of times what we see is that there are people who need users and we have users over here that need technology we'd like to be able to provide some of the grease to allow these things to happen so I joined the organization in July and we've succeeded in getting the website up and running I've been using all these fabulous tools that I learned about at first beyond the PDF and trying to make sure that we don't reinvent things when other things work out just as well we have about 225 members I'm hoping many of you in this room are also members but I am trying to do some active outreach so there are groups for example the library sciences that we feel are underrepresented and we really wanted to bring more of these in because obviously this is a key stakeholder in this new 21st century publishing model we've established a resource repository so where we put tools, data, project papers we aggregate blogs and make sure we have relevant papers but I think our biggest next thing is the next beyond the PDF conference so the next beyond the PDF conference I just found out from the research data association it's gonna be held at exactly the same time March of next year and I'll talk a little bit about that in just a moment but as I've sort of experienced this from my own personal perspective my own personal growth and going back and having the opportunity to read again the early days of scientific publishing what I have seen, what I have been able to do is to bring a lot of what I've learned to force 11 into the domain scientists themselves I still go into the neuroscience conferences and what I've noticed is that there's this very sort of interesting passivity where people just accept the fact that they have to publish their articles in journals and that that's the only venue for them and so what was interesting is I was at a conference where everybody was complaining that the journals were cutting the materials and methods and they weren't allowing them to publish the materials and methods and I just raised my hand I'm like, no you wanna publish the detailed materials and methods, do it, do it tomorrow you can link it to your PubMed article you can make a video out of it you can do a full multimedia presentation as if there's nothing stopping you and it is quite clear that journals arose because scientists wanted to communicate it was not the other way around this is what really pushed it so I do think we need to push in the scientific community in the scholarship community to say listen, you still have your own metrics your impact and everything else but there's a lot of things available to you and you need to start taking advantage of them and I do think it's going to be the senior people who are gonna lead the way because they're the ones who train the students and say this is acceptable and not acceptable so I published, of course, a blog because me and journals won't publish my methods and I started to do these and it's a fair amount of comment but I think again that we really are beyond the point of all talking, it's time for us to do so beyond the PDF we'll be in Amsterdam March 19th and 20th of next year unfortunately a lot of these things look exactly like the ones from the last Beyond the PDF but there's two big sessions that we really wanna have one is making it happen and beyond the horizon so for making it happen we really want Source 11 to be the place where the groups come together and say you know what Orchid ID, that's a standard we should all stand behind it, we should all use it if there are things that we know we want to be able to put them out so the manifesto is not just the hand waving but it's sort of like no this is really what we need to do if there are catalysis that needs to go on to make these things go faster we want to be able to do that too so we really view Source 11 as a catalyst for change and we want it to be on the PDF and the website itself to really take a hard headed look at what can be adopted now what are the evidence that any of these things are successful there's a lot of tools out there can we all join our heads together think about sustainable business models I don't think one group should just be doing this by themselves and A, how do we persuade the research community to change it's a cultural issue how do we start to get this into practice so Anita really wanted your feedback to say how can we better involve and connect to the activities of the members here and what do you need from us what do you need from Of Source 11 is it that you're developing technologies and you need users can we connect you to users or do you need tools if you have a use case you need to advertise a bully puppet it's really whatever you need because as I said it wasn't really intended to be a graphic organization thank you we don't even have any time according to this it was only did we start a little late oh no okay so we still have six minutes okay all that time right now you just go to the website and sign up but the membership is being asked very specifically to be involved in certain activities so what we want to be able to do is to establish sort of a global network of people who are available to speak you know who can have materials if anybody wants somebody there we also want you to you know be available for people who are looking for any of those people so if you have a technology or what have you we're looking for people again to get involved in Of Source 11 just actively organizing sessions and things for beyond the PDF link your blog there if you have something that you want to say and again just sort of say listen these are the pieces that we can bring to the table and here's what we need to sort of harness that energy there's very little requirement that is an interesting question I get asked that too and I gave it some thought because I really don't think we need another organization when it doesn't serve any purpose so I think once the it really was amazing to me even between the first beyond the PDF to now how much change has gone on and I think if that change happens on a rapid time frame and it is the way that we you know need it to be then we can say we're done you know it's served its purpose it lived for a little while just like the kerosene lamp and then it went away so I think it really is when the manifesto is every day in commonplace yes to be here tomorrow evil yes well it turns out and I probably will get her in trouble but everyone else here doesn't think exactly the same but I mean the publishers themselves almost every group that I've interacted with I mean they know that their livelihood is on the line too and so it's not just that I think that they thought by this time they would be replaced the fact that they haven't been there some of them are standing back going you know these guys are not going to get their act together so we don't have to worry about it but I think most of them realize that the monetary value that they're going to be extracting from their old model is going away whether it goes away because people are clamoring for open access or just that the library budgets are cut and all the libraries are going to be publishing their own content their role is going away and so their role is really going to be in adding these value-added services doing the software engineering a lot of stuff that frankly academics really stick at okay but industry can really step up and do something well because we're still going to need those tools to interact with these things so I'm thinking those big servers those apps all of those things there being an ideal situation and you know in a position to be able to offer that to us so I think there's a lot of publishers and some you know high up publishers that are part of force 11 because I think they do want to be part of this dialogue and as I've been reading all of these lovely articles again I think a lot of them are by people who are at this conference all of us who are like yeah it should be open we haven't thought through all of the you know the ramifications of it even some of these data licenses or giving up intellectual property rights and patents and what do you know the universities rely on these patents for certain types of income so I think that there are a lot of issues that need to be brought out but to me the case for open and unfettered access to information sort of trumps all that because if you look at in some of the talks I saw earlier today the amount of money that gets this data is funded by taxpayers this is public funding of this stuff this is not private funding of this stuff and I do think that there is a case to be made that it needs to be served up optimally yeah no it's true and it's interesting when I've talked to my colleagues in the humanities the push for open access is not the same it's not the same drive and that again got me thinking about the fact that in science our unit of scholarship is really tiny it is one thing that is meant to be connected to zillions of other things it is not meant to be published as a monograph we don't even get any credit for monograph you know so it's very different yes well that was the neatest and so I'm not exactly sure what that means you know I can see several things in some of the discussions I've had there's a lot of things that people can do with data that for example if the principal investigator knew they were actually doing it with data they would be quite serious about it I'm also angry about it I also think that safe one of the things that we have when we get algorithms and things from industry that aren't open is nobody knows whether those algorithms are validated or not and you need to be able to do those types of validation and so I think they need to be transparent and configurable so that you can make sure that they're giving you answers that are appropriate and that there's not some systematic bias but I'm guessing they're okay that was the neatest you'll be here tomorrow I think so anyway anybody we hope you'll all join we hope to see a lot of people at Beyond the PDF too and I think the question about how will we know when we've served our purposes something again that I take the heart I don't want to make this a professional career I'm getting ready to retire okay thank you