Moving Beyond the Journal: A Changing Rolefor Publishers, Funders and Institutions
Rebecca Lawrence, PhD
Managing Director, F1000 Grouprebecca.Lawrence@f1000.com

Contents page

1. Challenges with the existing

4. Funder publishing platforms

publication system

2. Open Science – opportunities
and challenges

5. Next-generation indicators
6. Summary

3. Open science publishing model© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Challenges with existing publishing system
Much research is not accessible – behind paywalls
Long delays in sharing new findings
Biases and conflicts in anonymous editorial decisions
Lack of data supporting the findings  hard to reproduce & reuse
Much good research never published  skews our understanding
Significant research waste© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Need to move away from ‘publish or perish’“The whole outdated enterprise is kept
alive for one main reason: the fact that
employers and funders of researchers
assess researchers primarily by where
they publish.”Richard Smith, former Editor of BMJ
http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/07/12/richard-smith-another-step-towards-the-postjournal-world/

Source: Neuroskeptic Perspectives on Psychological Science 2012;7:643-644
Copyright © by Association for Psychological Science© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Open Science© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Global shift towards open science© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Rapid growth in open science tools & infrastructures© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Main barriers to uptake of Open Science
Researchers typically judged by Impact Factor/brand of research articles
Impact Factors/brands ingrained in the assessment and evaluation system
Impact Factors/brands very simple/easy to use – any replacement will naturally
be more complex so no incentive to shift without being pushed
Misconception that Open Science ≠ quality
Reality on the ground in review panels – hard to ensure adherence to policies
that state that Impact Factors/brands should not be used in assessment
Requires change at all levels e.g. all the way up to university league tables© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

The key: separate publication from evaluation
Now that we have moved on from print, there is no need for journals:
 readers don’t need them to find articles – search PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus etc
 only authors need them for the reflected benefit they provide via their brandIf a researcher has discovered a new finding, they should be able to share it with the community andthen defend it to their peers.
The research community should be able to view new discoveries without delay.
Readers would benefit from reading the views of expert peers on a new discovery.
Peer reviewers should receive due credit for this important contribution to the scholarly discourse.
New discoveries should be judged on the quality of the finding itself, not on the venue of publication.

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Significant growth of preprints© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

F1000Research: Preprints + Journal-like model
Submission and preprint-like stage
Open AccessBroad range of article types:
Research Articles
Data Notes
Software Tools
Methods Articles
Systematic Reviews etc

Formal invited peer review
Indexing in bibliographic databases

Review status:
Data accessible
Attention & usage
metrics available

Approved
Approved with reservations
Not approved© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Transparent peer review and discussion

Wellcome Open Research© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Transparent peer review and discussion
Reviewers:
 get credit for contributing to discussion

 focus on helping authors improve their work good training for ECRs
Coreferees (%)
14.00%
12.00%
10.00%
8.00%
6.00%
4.00%
2.00%
0.00%
2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Recognising Peer Review© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Interactive figures
Provide an extended viewer for inarticle visualisations
Have a “widget” integration where we
can run Shiny apps.

Have an integration with plot.ly tohost interactive figures in R.

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Computational reproducibility
Embedded into articles to improve
reproducibility.
Authors simply upload their codeand data then users can rerun theanalysis.
Users can edit the code to see
how the results differ by changing
the parameters.
Users can run their own analyses
by uploading their data.

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Funder-/institution-controlled platforms© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Central portal for
publication© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Re-invigorating commitments:•

1323 new individual signatures to a total of 12,779•

146 new organizational signatures to a total of 580

Examples of good practices:•

6 funding agencies•

6 research institutes•

2 professional societies© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Range of outputs and associated metrics© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Term

Definition

Conceptualization

Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims.

Methodology

Development or design of methodology; creation of models.

Software

Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting
algorithms; testing of existing code components.

Validation

Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and otherresearch outputs.

Formal Analysis

Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyse or synthesize study data.

Investigation

Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection.

Resources

Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, orother analysis tools.

Data Curation

Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it isnecessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later re-use.

Writing – Original Draft

Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive
translation).

Writing – Review & Editing

Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically criticalreview, commentary or revision – including pre- or post-publication stages.

Visualization

Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation.

Supervision

Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core
team.

Project Admin

Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution.

Funding Acquisition

Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication.

CRedi
T

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

https://forum.casrai.org/c/standards

CrediT: from authorship to contributorship% PLOS papers with specific CRediT role(out of >15,000 articles)
Writing - Original Draft
Writing - Review & Editing
Conceptualization
Formal analysis
Methodology
Investigation
Supervision
Data curation
Funding acquisition
Project administration
Resources
Validation
Visualization
Software
0%

20%

40%
60%
% of papers

80%

100%

Vincent Larivière, Cassidy Sugimoto, preliminary results© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

F1000Prime – article-based expert assessment

Over 8000 experts across biology and medicine
Faculty include 10 Nobel Laureates, 16 Lasker Award winners,>150 NAS members, etc>200,000 recommendations, across >4000 journals© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Example F1000 Faculty© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Example recommendation© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Indicators of quality: existing and new
Badges to capture level ofchecks (e.g. plagiarism,
reporting) and of review (e.g.
expert peer review, community
review)
Relative Citation Ratio
Expert recommendations (e.g.
F1000Prime, PreLights,
PreReview, Research Highlights)
Journals & societies could movefrom publishing new findings toinstead providing curation acrossall published findings (not justwhat is sent to them)© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Summary
The tools and technologies exist to resolve many issues with the traditional way ofcommunicating new discoveries
Change is cultural - little will change unless we tackle the rewards & incentives structure head-on
We no longer need the journal; researchers should be able to communicate new findings when
they are readyNew models exist and have been thoroughly tested to enable a better way of communicating
researchResearch funders, governments and institutions are crucial to embracing and enabling
researchers to change to such a system
Publishers should shift from gatekeepers to service providers to the scientific community
We are starting to see such a shift at an increasing pace worldwide – join us!

© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd

Questions?
rebecca.lawrence@f1000.com© 2000-2018 Faculty of 1000 Ltd