force 11: future of research communications and e-scholarship
Post on 27-Jun-2015
369 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
FORCE11
Future of Research Communications and E-Scholarship
http://force11.org
Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D.University of California, San Diego
What is FORCE11?• Future of Research
Communications and E-Scholarship– A grass roots effort to
accelerate the pace and nature of scholarly communications and e-scholarship through technology, education and community
• Why 11? We were born in 2011 in Dagstuhl, Germany
• Principles laid out in the FORCE11 Manifesto
• FORCE11 launched in July 2012
Supported by a grant from the Sloan Foundation
The FORCE11 ManifestoProblems Recommendations
Formats and Technologies2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit and undermine effective knowledge transfer
3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarly publication
2.2 Improved knowledge dissemination mechanisms produce information overload
3.2 Develop tools and technologies that better support the scholarly lifecycle
2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard to reuse
3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into the publication as first-class research objects
Business Models and Attribution of Credit2.4 There is a tension between commercial publishing and the provision of unfettered access to scholarly information
3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models of open access
2.5 Traditional business models of publishing are being threatened
3.5 Derive new business models for science publishers and libraries
2.6 Current academic assessment models don’t adequately measure the merit of scholars and their work over the full breadth of their research outputs
3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluating quality and impact that extend beyond traditional print outputs to embrace the new technologies
http://www.force11.org/white_paper
Who is FORCE11?
Publishers
Library and Information
scientistsPolicy
makers
Tool builders
Funders
Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century
Science
Social Science
Humanities
Scholars
Executive Committee
• Maryann Martone, UCSD• Phil Bourne, UCSD• Anita de Waard, Elsevier• Ed Hovy, Carnegie-Mellon• Tim Clark, Harvard• Cameron Neylon-PLoS• Paul Groth-VU, Amsterdam• Ivan Herman-W3C• Dan O’Donnell-U Lethbridge
FORCE11 Vision• Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far wider
impact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear
• We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication more generally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge
• To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarly publication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts
• To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put in place reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate and contribute
• To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have to support the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offerings that new technologies enable
Beyond the PDF Visual Notes by De Jongens van de Tekeningen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.
Old Model: Single type of content; single mode of distribution
Scholar
Library
Scholar
Publisher
Scholar
Consumer
Libraries
Data Repositories
Code RepositoriesCommunity databases/platforms
OA
Curators
Social Networks
Social NetworksSocial
Networks
Peer Reviewers
Narrative
Workflows
Data
Blogs/Wikis
Multimedia
Nanopublications
Code
The scientific corpus is fragmented
• 22 million articles total, each covering a
fragment of the biomedical space
• Each publisher owns a fragment of a particular field– Spinal Muscular Atrophy
• Fatal genetic disorder of children
• 5000 papers
Whole-sale text-mining is required for synthesis and discovery
Search Pub Med: Spinal Muscular Atrophy
Current methods are inefficient and result in a non-computable product
PuneetKishor,
Is the current method serving science?
47/50 major preclinical published cancer studies could not be replicated
“The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value-that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time. Unfortunately, this is not always the case.”
Begley and Ellis, 29 MARCH 2012 | VOL 483 | NATURE | 531
“There are no guidelines that require all data sets to be reported in a paper; often, original data are removed during the peer review and publication process. “
Getting data out sooner in a form where they can be exposed to many eyes and many analyses may allow us to expose errors and develop better metrics to evaluate the validity of data
Scholarly communication should move away from its paper centric model and traditions, and join the
information age!
Ivan Herman
A new platform for scholarly communications
Components• Authoring tools
– Optimized for mark up and linked content• Containers
– Expand the objects that are considered “publications”– Optimize the container for the content
• Processes– Scholarship is code
• Mark up– Data, claims, content suitable for the web– Suitable identifier systems
• Reward systems– Incentives to change– Reward for new objects
Scholarship must move from a “single currency system”; platforms must recognize diversity of output and representation
www.researchobject.org
Beyond the PDF• Conference/
unconference where all stakeholders come together as equals to discuss issues
• Incubator for change• What would you do
to change scholarly communication?San Diego, Jan 2011 ........... Amsterdam, March 2013
Sessions
We have produced a 200 page report. What are you going to change?
“Very Little.”
May 15, 2013 17Slide courtesy of Todd Carpenter
Outcomes• FORCE11 Manifesto 2.0
– Recommendations for propelling scholarly communications into the future
• 1K Challenge:– What would you do for 1K to
change scholarly communication?
• Landscape of scholarly communication– Who is doing what? – Are their gaps?
Visual notes of BtPDF2:De Jongens van de Tekeningen
Manifesto 1.0 Manifesto 2.0Problems Recommendations
Formats and Technologies2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit and undermine effective knowledge transfer
3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarly publication
2.2 Improved knowledge dissemination mechanisms produce information overload
3.2 Develop tools and technologies that better support the scholarly lifecycle
2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard to reuse
3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into the publication as first-class research objects
Business Models and Attribution of Credit2.4 There is a tension between commercial publishing and the provision of unfettered access to scholarly information
3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models of open access
2.5 Traditional business models of publishing are being threatened
3.5 Derive new business models for science publishers and libraries
2.6 Current academic assessment models don’t adequately measure the merit of scholars and their work over the full breadth of their research outputs
3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluating quality and impact that extend beyond traditional print outputs to embrace the new technologies
Can we check some things off? What do we need to add?
Born digital: Narrative objects made for the web
• The Manifesto should be an exemplar of a new form of scholarly communication– Interactive– Collaborative– Born for the web
• The Digital Humanities has been thinking and creating in this medium
Tara McPherson, University of Southern California
ORCID – Author disambiguation
Founded by CrossRef, Thomson-Reuters, Nature in 2009
Now 328 participant organizations, 50 of which have provided sponsorship funding
Prototype technologyLaunched in fall 2011
May 15, 2013 21FORCE 11: A mechanism for cross-disciplinary education and outreach
“What is an orcid id?”-computer scientist
Bringing stakeholders together: Data citation principles
http://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifesto
MercèCrosas, Todd Carpenter, David Shotton and Christine Borgman
Other 1K Challenge Winners
Tobias Kuhn, StianHaklev, Melissa Haendel
FORCE11: Engaging the community
Ending the tyranny of formatting
http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2012/12/13/a-call-for-scholarly-markdown/
Separating the code from the interface
Reproducibility and representation of research resources: Current problems
• Lack of access to materials and methods sections of papers
• Lack of sufficient information within a paper– Author doesn’t supply sufficient information to uniquely identify the
resource • No stock numbers, catalog numbers, model numbers, or other uniquely identifying
information
• Resource identification not optimized for automated systems– “We used the protocol of Martone et al., 1999”– Official mouse strain names not meant for computers
• SMNΔ7tg/tg:Smn1−/−– Non-unique, common names for resources, e.g., R
Neuroscience Information Framework: http://neuinfo.orgMonarch Initiative: http://monarchinitiative.org
Workshop: Identification and tracking of biomedical resources
• Focus on developing consistent policies for identifying key reagents and resources (e.g., software tools) used in scientific studies
• Neuroscience journal editors and publishers• Consistent reporting format:– Machine processable– Outside the pay wall
June 26, 2013: Bethesda, MD
Scholarly communication landscape: Is there a big picture?
Are we really suffering from a lack of tools?
-or is it usable tools?-or is it tools that are
used?-or is it awareness that
there are tools?-or are these even the
right tools?
ORCID
Data journals
Research Data AlliancePeerJ, eLife
Workflows 4Ever
Data Verse
Impact Story, Rubriq
Sadie
Scalar
What big issues are we not addressing?
• New roles and vanishing roles
• Are there broad agreements that need to be forged?
• Are the issues the same for all stakeholders?
Librarians are publishersScholars are curatorsPublishers are archivistsScholars are customersScholars are publishersEveryone is a standards developer!
Is there still a role for everyone? Are we training an adequate workforce?
Scholars need to be data scientists
Open citations? Text mining across the corpus? Where is lack of coordination holding us back?
Humanities and sciencesDeveloped and developing worldTechnologists and scholarsInstitutions and individualsScholars and taxpayers
Can and should everyone be brought to the table for all discussions?
FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions
http://www.scilogs.com/eresearch/pages-of-history/ David De Roure29
The scholarly community is changing
• 7000 scientists signed the declaration to end the reliance on impact factor
http://am.ascb.org/dora/
Jongens van de Tekeningen
Questions for you?• Is your community represented in FORCE11?• Are your needs the same as the other stakeholders in the areas
of:– Containers– Processes– Mark up– Authoring– Reward
• Are there new areas not addressed in the manifesto?• What do you need from FORCE11?
– Users?– Tools?– Collaborators?– Advertising?– A bully pulpit?/platform for cooperation?– Protocols and best practices?
• What can you do for FORCE11?
top related