Open research: from the perspective of Wellcome

Transcription

1 Open research: from the perspective of Wellcome UKSG, 15 th November 2017 Robert Kiley, Wellcome Trust Head Open Research ORCID: Slides made available under

2 What I plan to cover ( in 20 mins) Open Wellcome Review current status of OA Outputs sharing Aligning incentives A look to the future

3 Wellcome and Open Research Committed to ensuring research outputs can be accessed and used in ways that maximise health & societal benefit Making these outputs more widely available holds the potential to: accelerate discovery and its application help ensure findings can be validated and reproduce increase efficiency reduce duplication and waste Dedicated Open Research team established

4 OA: where are we?

5 Scale of OA (legal) Estimated that 45% of content published in 2015 is now Open Source:

6 Scale of OA (illegal) Estimated that Sci-Hub's database contains 68.9% of all 81.6 million scholarly articles This rises to 85.2% for those published in closed access journals Source:

7 Wellcome s approach

8 Open access Wellcome policy Mandatory % of papers in PMC Research articles must be made available at time of publication or in any event within 6 months Fully fund OA APC s Require deposition (by publisher) in PMC with CCBY licence when APC paid Compliance (%) % of papers in PMC Month Around 80% of Wellcome-attributed articles made OA in line with policy 8

9 Meeting OA costs (Wellcome COAF) Hybrid OA 52% more expensive that full OA Median APC increased by 6% over past 12 months

10 Basket of publishing opprtunities Supporting new publishing platform Wellcome Open Research (WOR) and continuing to support elife Continues to fully fund OA publication costs both hybrid and full OA Strong supporter of preprints

11 Wellcome Open Research

12 Wellcome Open Research: making the sharing of results. Faster Transparent Reproducible Inclusive Cost-effective

13 Wellcome Open Research: making the sharing of results. Faster Transparent Reproducible Inclusive Cost-effective

14 Wellcome Open Research: making the sharing of results. Faster Transparent Reproducible Inclusive Cost-effective

15 Wellcome Open Research: making the sharing of results. Faster Transparent Reproducible Inclusive Cost-effective 15

16 Wellcome Open Research: making the sharing of results. Faster Transparent Reproducible Inclusive Cost-effective Average APC for Wellcome Open Research (inc VAT) Average APC across all journals used by Wellcome authors (inc VAT)

17 Rise of funder platforms. Growing number of funder platforms including Gates, Health Research Board, and others Development of Open Research Central Currently an aggregation service In time, potentially a funder agnostic publishing platform 17

18 Preprints Preprints seen as another way in which dissemination of research outputs can be made faster and more inclusive (i.e. all types of outputs not just research articles) Wellcome grantee s can now cite preprints in grant applications and end of grant reports Significant growth in both the number of preprint submissions and preprint servers Source:

19 Next steps for Wellcome

20 Review our OA policy Policy in place since 2005; last reviewed in 2012 Landscape changed OA is mainstream OA publication costs are increasing & scant evidence that effective market forces are at play New options to consider role of preprints, Scholarly Communications Licence, Wellcome Open Research, offsetting deals etc Early modelling suggest that over next 5 years we will spend between 37m and 46m on APC costs

21 Early options under consideration Option 1 Do nothing Option 2 Stop funding hybrid (assume authors switch to fully OA) Option 3 Introduce funding cap (on hybrids) Option 4 Move to zero embargo Option 5 Become greener Option 6 Change model for paying APCs And any combination of the above.

22 Output sharing

23 Managing and sharing research outputs Wellcome policy New policy on managing and sharing data, software and materials Key elements of the policy are: expect all researchers to maximise access to outputs with as few restrictions as possible require an outputs management plan - where the research is likely to generate significant outputs of clear value as a resource commit to review and support costs of output management plans New policy clarifies our expectations of researchers in several key respects particularly requirement to share underlying data & code at the time of publication 23

24 Aligning incentives

25 Incentivising output sharing: the evidence Expert Advisory Group on Data Access report found that research culture and environment did not provide sufficient support nor rewards for data sharing Wellcome commissioned five literature reviews in 2016 looking at key challenge areas including incentives Key findings direct incentives to share data are weak: there are few consequences for not meeting funder mandates, and funders need to do more to support researchers and meet costs providing more explicit recognition for high quality data outputs in key assessment processes 25

26 Researcher attitudes to outputs sharing Concerns persist around fear of misuse of data, resource & time required to share data and loss of publication opportunities Van den Eynden, Veerle; Knight, Gareth; Vlad, Anca; Radler, Barry; Tenopir, Carol; Leon, David; Manista, Frank; Whitworth, Jimmy; Corti, Louise (2016): Survey of Wellcome researchers and their attitudes to open research. figshare. ( 26

27 Moving beyond journal names: a 3 step approach Step 1 Policy development and declarations OA policy talks about intrinsic value of research, not venue of publication, sign DORA Step 2 Implementation Remove biases in application forms such that applicants only discuss journal articles Provide guidance to staff, reviewers, panel members to consider the value and impact of all research outputs Step 3 Engagement Be explicit on how scientific productivity of applicants is assessed and what criteria are used Celebrate grantees who practice open research

28 Develop new ways to assign impact Most journals conflate two functions: Peer review to validate the science Editorial review seeking to identify research which is exemplary, ground-breaking & novel Leads to researchers chasing publications in luxury journals which can be detrimental to science Need to develop a new way to identify the best research that doesn t rely on journal name Interested in developing an experiment in which open articles published under CC-BY, and where the peer reviews reports are and open and signed can be exposed to a second editorial review

29 The future? Some closing thoughts The publishing ecosystem will continue to evolve Preprinting (in the life sciences) will become standard practice Open, signed peer review will also become widely adopted and integrated into the services preprint servers offer Overlay journals where experts identify the best/novel/ground-breaking research will (in the life sciences) become a reality Articles will become fully actionable no longer static documents (e.g. see elife s Reproducible Document Stack, or the Code Ocean platform) Publishers will adopt freemium model a read only copy available for free, revenue comes from other services (e.g. help researchers find the best/most impactful research, alerting services, tools is make used of the data etc.) Data, not publications, will become the new currency of the realm for researchers

30 Questions?