ALPSP Seminar Talk given at ALPSP Seminar Beyond the rhetoric: New opportunities in open access Tuesday 20 November 2012

1. Peer review in a digital
environment
Mark Patterson
eLife
ALPSP Seminar, November 20th, 2012

2. Open access is just
one part of a
broader transition
http://www.flickr.com/photos/anandham/4499539060/

3. The goals of
peer review
• Assess technical merits of
Open access is just work
• Assess likely significance
one part of a of work
broader transition
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/21stC/issue-1.1/peer.htm

4. How does peer review
work? The goals of peer
review
• Assess technical merits of
Open access is just work
• Assess likely significance
one part of a of work
broader transition
http://www.scienceforseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/peerreview.jpg

5. Open access is just
one part of a
broader transition

6. Is peer
review The goals of peer
broken? review
Open access is just
one part of a
broader transition
http://the-political-ear.com/?p=595

7. Experiments in peer review
• Increasing transparency
– Non-anonymous
– Exposing the process
• Broadening participation
– Public peer review before publication
– Post-publication assessment/metrics
• Changing the question
– Publish first then filter

8. Increasing transparency

9. Open peer review
Reviewers are not
anonymous
Reviewers are
not anonymous
Complete
submission
history published

10. Open peer review (2)
Reviewers can
remain anonymous
Cross-referee
commenting
Complete
submission
history published

11. eLife editorial process
Swift triage
Full
submission Peer review
Consultation Amongst reviewers before decision
Decision
letter Consolidate feedback, published
Revision
Limit rounds of revision
decision

14. Broadening participation

15. http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033/full

16. • Founded 2001
• Publishes ~800
papers per year
• 20% papers
receive
comment from
community
http://www.frontiersin.org/Computational_Neuroscience/10.3389/fncom.2012.00033/full

18. “Facilitating sustained and rigorous
analysis of evidence and theory is
the most rigorous form of peer
review.”

22. Acknowledgment
Martin Fenner, PLOS

23. Acknowledgment
Martin Fenner, PLOS

24. PLOS Papers Funded by the Wellcome Trust
Location of the first authors for 1961 articles funded by the Wellcome Trust (blue = MOPs, green = MRC, dark grey = all other).
Acknowledgment
Martin Fenner, PLOS

25. Changing the question

26. Open-access
megajournals

27. PLOS ONE quarterly publications

28. Open-access
megajournals

29. Megajournals during their first year
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
BMJ Open Sci Rep AIP Adv SAGE G3 PLOS ONE
Open

30. Megajournals don’t…
• Organize content
• Assess impact
• Publish opinion/commentary

31. Megajournals do…
• Accelerate research communication
• Make publishing cheaper
• Drive open access
• Challenge traditional journals

32. Experimentation
and diversity
www.flickr.com/photos/keepitsurreal/1884615328/

33. Questions?
Mark Patterson
m.patterson@elifesciences.org